Corruption trial evidence: corroborated trap testimony and proven demand, acceptance and recovery sustain conviction despite hostile witnesses.

A trap witness who also lodged the FIR is not automatically disqualified from investigation; the inquiry fails only if real bias or prejudice is shown, and no such unfairness was established here. A hostile witness is not wholly effaced from the record and may be relied on to the extent its testimony is corroborated by other trustworthy evidence, which occurred here. In a corruption prosecution, demand is a sine qua non, but demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money, supported by the shadow witness, trap officer, phenolphthalein test and surrounding circumstances, attracted the statutory presumption under Section 20, which remained unrebutted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether investigation by a member of the trap party who also lodged the FIR vitiated the prosecution or trial; (ii) whether the testimony of a hostile witness could be relied upon when supported by other evidence; (iii) whether demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification were proved so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether investigation by a member of the trap party who also lodged the FIR vitiated the prosecution or trial.

Analysis: A trap witness is an interested witness whose evidence is to be tested with caution, but there is no absolute rule that a member of the raiding party or the person who initiated the FIR is disqualified from investigation. The relevant question is whether the investigation shows real bias or prejudice. On the facts, no material was elicited to show personal interest or unfairness in the investigation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the investigation failed and the trial was not vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the testimony of a hostile witness could be relied upon when supported by other evidence.

Analysis: The evidence of a hostile witness is not wholly effaced from the record. It may be accepted to the extent it is found dependable and can be relied upon if corroborated by other trustworthy material. The witness's examination-in-chief and re-examination, read with the surrounding evidence, supported the prosecution case despite the later resiling in cross-examination.

Conclusion: The hostile witness's testimony was admissible and could be acted upon to the extent it was corroborated.

Issue (iii): Whether demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification were proved so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and recovery by itself is insufficient. Here, however, the evidence of the independent witness, the shadow witness, the trap officer, the phenolphthalein test, the recovery of tainted currency notes, and the unrebutted circumstances together established demand, acceptance and recovery. The statutory presumption under Section 20 was therefore attracted and remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The offences were proved and the conviction was justified.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld because the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of the bribery offences through corroborated trap evidence and the presumption arising from proven acceptance of tainted money.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, a trap witness or hostile witness may be relied upon if the testimony is otherwise credible and corroborated, and once demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money are proved, the statutory presumption of illegal gratification may be drawn unless rebutted.

---