Bribery conviction requires an intact prosecution story; recovery alone cannot sustain guilt after the core demand evidence is rejected.

A bribery conviction could not be sustained where the appellate court rejected the prosecution's essential foundation, namely the alleged earlier demand and part-payment, yet attempted to rely on the later recovery evidence alone. The SC held that the prosecution story was an indivisible whole and that the recovery could not be treated as an independent case when it did not stand by itself on the pleaded version. Suspected circumstances could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, and a new theory that the recovered amount was the bribe could not be introduced after the vital factual basis had been disbelieved. The conviction and sentences were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction for bribery and criminal misconduct could be sustained where the appellate court disbelieved the prosecution's essential genesis, namely the earlier demand and part-payment, but relied on the remaining recovery evidence.

Analysis: The prosecution case was treated as one integrated narrative. The court held that once the High Court had rejected the vital foundation that the appellant had demanded Rs. 100 and received Rs. 20 in advance, it could not legitimately sustain the conviction by isolating the later recovery of Rs. 70 as if it were an independent and complete case. The recovery evidence did not stand by itself on the prosecution version, and the later inference that the recovered amount was the bribe was a new case not pleaded by the prosecution. Although circumstances aroused suspicion, suspicion could not substitute for proof when an essential part of the prosecution story had been disbelieved.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentences could not be sustained and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: An appellate court cannot uphold a bribery conviction by severing and reshaping a prosecution story after rejecting its essential foundation; where the rejected part is integral to the case, the remaining evidence may be insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution case is an indivisible whole, rejection of its essential foundation precludes affirming conviction on a fragmented residual theory not advanced by the prosecution.

---