TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Due to Unreliable Evidence and Inconsistencies</h1> <h3>Suraj Mal Versus State Delhi Administration</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and discharged the appellant from bail bonds. The Court found the evidence ... - Issues involved: Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC read with Section 34.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Conviction and sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPCThe appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC read with Section 34. The case involved a bribery demand of &8377; 2000, which was later settled at &8377; 1000. The witnesses' statements were inconsistent, leading to doubts about the credibility of the evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, but the Supreme Court found that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of money from the appellant alone was not considered conclusive evidence without reliable substantive evidence. The appellant's denial of the recovery was also a significant factor in overturning the conviction. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and discharged the appellant from bail bonds.Issue 2: Discrepancies in witness statements and lack of reliable evidenceThe witnesses' statements regarding the bribe demand and payment were inconsistent and unreliable. While the witnesses tried to implicate all three accused persons equally, they contradicted themselves in cross-examination, particularly in favor of one of the accused who was acquitted. The High Court's reliance on the recovery of money alone, without considering the circumstances or reliable evidence, was deemed insufficient for conviction. The absence of mention of the appellant's involvement in the initial report raised doubts about his complicity. The Court emphasized the need for reliable and consistent evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case. The appellant's denial of the recovery further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to the appeal being allowed and the conviction being set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
