Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals by accused police officers (Ramaiah, Police Head Constable, and T.R. Hanumanthaiah, Police Sub-Inspector) against their conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on 20.06.2007, the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant (PW-1) to release a seized auto rickshaw. A trap was laid by Lokayukta police, and the bribe money was recovered from accused No.1. The trial court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The sole trap witness (PW-1) was the complainant, who had a prior dispute with the accused regarding the seizure of his auto, making him an interested witness. The independent witnesses (PWs-3 and 4) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court held that the testimony of an interested witness requires independent corroboration, which was lacking. The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise without foundational facts. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted both accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Trap Witness Credibility - Interested Witness - Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The sole trap witness (PW-1) was the complainant who had a prior grievance against the accused, making him an interested witness. The court held that conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of an interested witness without independent corroboration, especially when other independent witnesses (PWs-3 and 4) turned hostile. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise unless the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Hostile Witness - Effect - Independent witnesses (PWs-3 and 4) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Their testimony could not be used to corroborate the trap witness. The court held that the prosecution's case must stand on its own evidence, and the hostile witnesses' testimony cannot be selectively used to fill gaps. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and the other independent witnesses have turned hostile.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Trap witness credibility
- Interested witness
- Hostile witness
- Corroboration requirement
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
