2016 (1) TMI 1429 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - demand of bribe - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - On the basis of factual and legal aspects of the case and evidence on record produced in the case, it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. After a careful reading of the evidence of the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2), statements made by the Appellant in his examination Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the evidence of Anoop Kumar Verma (PW-6) and inspector-Sunder Dev (PW-12), it is clear that there was no demand of bribe money by the Appellant from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan - It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) by the Appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the Appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him - The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the Appellant from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the demand for bribe by the appellant.
2. Validity of the evidence presented, including the testimony of the complainant and panch witness.
3. Correctness of the lower courts' judgments upholding the conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Demand for Bribe by the Appellant:

The appellant was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 5000 for the release of Krishan Kumar on bail. The complainant, Jai Bhagwan, allegedly paid Rs. 4000 initially and was asked to pay the remaining Rs. 1000 later. The prosecution's case was based on this demand and subsequent payment. However, the appellant contended that the demand for bribe was improbable since Krishan Kumar had already been released on bail as per the directions of ASI Ranbir Singh. The Supreme Court found that the complainant's testimony did not support the prosecution's claim of the appellant's demand for bribe. The complainant turned hostile and stated that the demand was made by Ranbir Singh, ASI, not the appellant.

2. Validity of the Evidence Presented:

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the complainant, Jai Bhagwan, and the panch witness, Anoop Kumar Verma. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent, and he turned hostile, denying the appellant's demand for bribe. The panch witness did not hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant, only stating that "some talk" took place. The Supreme Court emphasized that the demand for bribe is a sine qua non for constituting an offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence presented failed to prove the demand beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Correctness of the Lower Courts' Judgments:

Both the trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in their evaluation of the evidence. The complainant's hostile testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence from the panch witness undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without proof of demand for illegal gratification. The judgments of the lower courts were found to be erroneous and suffering from legal errors.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, acquitting the appellant of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant from jail.