9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 950 - SC - Indian LawsBribery - prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 or not - HELD THAT - The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence got before it by the prosecution arrived at just and proper conclusion that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly awarded the sentence and conviction to the accused. It is opined further that the High Court committed serious error in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on erroneous grounds. The High Court gave an undue importance to the minor discrepancies and failed to appreciate the trust-worthy evidence in the form of ocular testimony of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence. PW1/Complainant in his testimony before the court gave a detailed account establishing the basic and important facts such as the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. PW1 makes a reference to his first application seeking the entry in the revenue records - The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW1 in great detail. However the High Court observed that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and evidence of PW 1 shows that on washing by phenolphthalein only one hand i.e. right-hand fingers of the accused the colour got changed to pink colour. The High Court made observations that there is no material on record to support the prosecution case and particularly version of PW 1 that the accused after accepting the money i.e. Rs. 500/- kept the notes in his pant pocket. The prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences. Conclusion - The record indicates that the respondent- accused enjoyed a liberty during the trial as he was on bail and post the judgment of the Trial Court as also during the pendency of the appeal before the High court he was enjoying the liberty by way of bail. As such it is unable to show any kind of indulgence on the aspect of the quantum of sentence and accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court is upheld. Resultantly the accused is to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks from today. Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the principles laid down in precedent cases, notably the requirement that the prosecution must establish (i) the accused was a public servant at the material time; (ii) the accused accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration; and (iii) the gratification was for an illegal purpose. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that these ingredients were clearly established by the prosecution. The complainant (PW1) and shadow witness (PW2) gave detailed ocular evidence of the demand and acceptance of bribe. The complainant's testimony, supported by documentary evidence (application for mutation in revenue records), established the context and sequence of events. The trap laid by the police, including the use of phenolphthalein-marked currency notes and the recovery of marked notes from the accused's possession, corroborated the charge. Key evidence and findings: PW1 testified that after submitting an application for mutation, the accused demanded Rs. 2,000 as bribe, which was negotiated down to Rs. 1,500, and finally Rs. 500 was paid during the trap. PW2, the shadow witness, corroborated that the accused accepted the money, counted it, and kept it in his pant pocket. The phenolphthalein test on the accused's hands turned pink, indicating contact with marked notes. The pant pocket was seized and marked, further supporting the prosecution's case. Application of law to facts: The Court found the prosecution had discharged its burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, based on consistent ocular testimony, documentary evidence (Ex.P18 and Ex.P22), and the trap mahazar (Ex.P2). Treatment of competing arguments: The High Court had doubted the prosecution evidence due to minor discrepancies, such as the date of application submission and differences in the description of which hand handled the notes. The High Court also questioned the improbability of the accused accepting only Rs. 500 instead of the full Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500. However, the Supreme Court found these discrepancies to be minor and not going to the root of the case, especially given the ten-year gap before trial and the rustic background of witnesses. The Court emphasized that minor contradictions in witness testimony are natural over time and do not warrant acquittal if the core facts are established. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the demand and acceptance of bribe were satisfactorily proved and that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of minor inconsistencies. Issue 2: Application of Section 20 of the P.C. Act (Presumption of Guilt upon Recovery of Bribe Money) Relevant legal framework: Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides that if a public servant is found in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income or if bribe money is recovered from him, a presumption of guilt arises unless he can satisfactorily explain the possession. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The High Court held that Section 20 did not apply as the oral evidence did not satisfactorily establish either demand or acceptance of bribe. The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the recovery of marked currency notes from the accused's possession during the trap, coupled with the phenolphthalein test and corroborative testimony, justified the application of Section 20 presumption. Key evidence and findings: The trap mahazar (Ex.P2) detailed the marked currency notes recovered from the accused. The number of notes was reconciled with the notes held by the complainant, and the police seized the accused's pant pocket where the money was kept. The accused's explanation that the money was forcibly kept in his pocket was denied by the complainant and shadow witness. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the presumption under Section 20 was rightly invoked by the trial court and supported by evidence. Treatment of competing arguments: The accused's defense that the money was forcibly placed in his pocket was rejected based on the credible testimony of prosecution witnesses and the physical evidence. Conclusions: The Court affirmed the applicability of Section 20 presumption in this case, strengthening the prosecution's case. Issue 3: Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses and Impact of Minor Discrepancies Relevant legal framework: The Court recognized that minor discrepancies in testimony, especially after a long delay, are common and do not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the High Court gave undue weight to minor contradictions such as the date of application submission, the hand used to handle currency notes, and confusion over witness names. The Court emphasized that the complainant and shadow witness gave consistent and reliable evidence on the core facts of demand and acceptance of bribe. Key evidence and findings: The complainant's application dated 24.01.1995 (Ex.P22) was part of the record and supported his testimony. The shadow witness corroborated the handling and acceptance of bribe money. The Court also noted that the witnesses had no prior acquaintance, making confusion over names understandable. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that minor inconsistencies should not result in acquittal when the main facts are established beyond reasonable doubt. Treatment of competing arguments: The High Court's reliance on these discrepancies to acquit the accused was rejected as erroneous and perverse. Conclusions: The witnesses' testimonies were held to be trustworthy and sufficient to sustain conviction. Issue 4: Sanction for Prosecution Relevant legal framework: Prosecution of a public servant under the P.C. Act requires prior sanction. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Although the High Court did not address the sanction issue, the trial court examined it in detail and found that proper sanction was obtained. The Supreme Court accepted this conclusion. Conclusions: The prosecution was sanctioned properly, validating the trial proceedings. Issue 5: Appropriateness of Sentence Relevant legal framework: Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act prescribe minimum and maximum imprisonment terms and fine for offences. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The trial court sentenced the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for each offence, with default stipulations. The accused sought leniency due to advanced age and delay in trial. The Court acknowledged these submissions but noted that the accused was on bail throughout the trial and appeal, enjoying liberty. Conclusions: The Court declined to reduce the sentence and upheld the trial court's order on quantum of punishment. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences." "The High Court committed serious error in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the High Court are not sufficient to discard the reliable and cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses." "The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is rightly invoked on recovery of marked currency notes from the accused's possession during the trap." "Minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses after a long delay do not go to the root of the case and should not lead to acquittal if the core facts are established beyond reasonable doubt." "The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the Trial Court is appropriate and is upheld."
|
