2005 (7) TMI 644 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether on the evidence and materials on record the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified or they require to be set aside?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of conviction and sentence under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Validity of legal sanction under Section 6 of the Act.
3. Proper consideration of materials and evidence on record.
4. Reliability of prosecution's evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.
5. Timing and validity of the electric connection provided to the complainant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Conviction and Sentence:
The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar, Patna, and sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently. This conviction was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction and sentence were justified based on the evidence and materials on record.

2. Validity of Legal Sanction:
The appellant's counsel argued that the absence of a legal sanction under Section 6 of the Act would vitiate the entire proceeding. However, the Supreme Court decided not to delve into this issue, focusing instead on the merits of the appeal.

3. Proper Consideration of Materials and Evidence:
The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the lower courts had properly considered the materials on record and appraised the evidence correctly. It was noted that the appellant had taken casual leave on the date when the alleged bribe of Rs. 100 was paid (25th June 1985), which was supported by documentary evidence (Ext.E) and the testimony of DW1, an officer of the department. The courts below had improperly discarded this evidence, leading to a manifest error.

4. Reliability of Prosecution's Evidence:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe was not reliable. The courts below had relied on the testimony of the watcher (PW5) and the complainant (PW6) for the payment of Rs. 150 on 28th June 1985. However, discrepancies were noted, such as the appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was not present during the alleged payment and the lack of use of phenolphthalein powder on the marked currency notes, which would have provided scientific evidence of handling. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of using scientific methods in trap cases to ensure the reliability of evidence.

5. Timing and Validity of Electric Connection:
The appellant argued that the electric connection was already provided to the complainant on 22nd June 1985, which negated the need for a bribe. This was supported by documentary evidence (Ext.F, Ext.G, Ext.K) and the testimony of local officials. The prosecution claimed the connection was given on 8th July 1985. The Supreme Court found the appellant's evidence more credible, concluding that the connection was indeed provided on 22nd June 1985, thus undermining the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were vitiated due to improper consideration of evidence and materials on record. The prosecution's evidence fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability, making it highly unsafe to act upon. The defense's version of events was found to be more probable, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was falsely implicated. Consequently, the judgments of the High Court and the Special Judge were set aside, and the appellant was exonerated from the charges. The appeal was allowed.