Corruption conviction requires reliable proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; inconsistent trap evidence led to acquittal.
A conviction for corruption cannot stand unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved beyond reasonable doubt by reliable evidence. The Court found the trap witnesses' evidence unsafe because of material inconsistencies, including a mismatch between oral testimony and the report made to the anti-corruption authorities. The surrounding circumstances and raid record also failed to satisfactorily connect the accused with any demand or acceptance of money. On that evidentiary basis, the prosecution did not discharge its burden and the conviction and sentence were set aside, resulting in acquittal.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded or accepted illegal gratification so as to sustain his conviction for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Analysis: The evidence of demand rested mainly on the statements of witnesses who were directly involved in the trap, and their version was found to be unreliable because of material inconsistencies, including the discrepancy between the oral testimony and the report made to the anti-corruption . The surrounding circumstances also did not satisfactorily establish the appellant's participation in the alleged demand or acceptance of money. The independent features of the raid and the conduct of the officers were treated as creating serious doubt about the prosecution version, and the record was held insufficient to connect the appellant with the alleged bribe.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not be sustained. The decision was in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for corruption cannot be sustained unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved beyond reasonable doubt by reliable evidence; where the material testimony is inconsistent and uncorroborated, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
