1976 (5) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns bribery conviction due to lack of evidence & witness credibility

Hari Dev Sharma Versus State (Delhi Administration)

The Supreme Court overturned the appellant's conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe, emphasizing the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in ... - Issues:Allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, violation of Section 161 of IPC, violation of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, witness credibility, evidence corroboration.Analysis:The appellant, an Upper Division Clerk, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe for expediting a property sale permission. The prosecution's case detailed instances of the appellant soliciting money from the complainant, with marked currency notes treated with Phenol Phathelone powder as evidence. The charges included violations of Section 161 of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant's defense rested on denying the bribery allegations and presenting witnesses to support an alternative explanation for the money exchange. The Special Judge convicted the appellant based on the prosecution's evidence and rejected the defense witnesses' testimony.On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the prosecution's case, questioning the credibility of the complainant's testimony regarding the initial payment of &8377; 20. While the High Court accepted the part of the case where the appellant was caught accepting &8377; 70 as a bribe, it raised doubts about the veracity of the entire narrative. The High Court emphasized the lack of corroboration for the initial payment and highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution's timeline. Notably, the High Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's account of events leading to the alleged bribery attempt.The Supreme Court, upon review, acknowledged the suspicious circumstances surrounding the appellant's actions but concurred with the High Court's reservations. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution's case was intertwined, and the disbelief in a crucial aspect weakened the overall narrative. As the High Court's doubts undermined the foundation of the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for a cohesive and credible prosecution narrative to sustain criminal charges. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentences.In conclusion, the legal proceedings centered on allegations of bribery against a public servant, highlighting the importance of witness credibility, evidence corroboration, and the coherence of the prosecution's case in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case underscores the significance of a consistent and reliable narrative in criminal prosecutions involving corruption charges.