1995 (3) TMI 500 - SC - Indian Laws

Engineer acquitted of bribery charges due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt

M.K. Harshan Versus State of Kerala

The court acquitted the appellant, an Executive Engineer, of charges under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ... - Issues:1. Validity of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Reliability of trap witness and corroboration of evidence.3. Circumstances of the alleged bribery incident and evidence presented.4. Credibility of prosecution witnesses and defense put forward by the accused.5. Evaluation of conflicting versions and lack of corroboration in the case.Analysis:1. The appellant, an Executive Engineer, was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main contentions raised were the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution and the reliability of the trap witness, PW-1. The appellant's counsel argued that corroboration was lacking in PW-1's evidence, crucial for establishing the acceptance of the bribe. However, the issue of sanction was not pursued on appeal. The court noted the necessity of corroboration for trap witness testimony in bribery cases.2. The incident revolved around the renewal of a theater license and an alleged demand for a bribe by the appellant. The prosecution's case relied heavily on PW-1's account of events leading to the alleged bribery. The trap operation involved marked currency notes and witnesses. The defense claimed the appellant was not present during the alleged bribe incident and suggested the money was planted without his knowledge.3. The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses, including PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11, along with defense witnesses. There were discrepancies in accounts regarding whether the accused handled the currency notes. The lack of corroboration and conflicting versions raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of establishing both demand and acceptance in bribery cases.4. The appellant's defense emphasized his absence during the alleged bribe incident and presented alibis supported by other witnesses. The court considered the appellant's plea that the money was planted without his knowledge as plausible. The prosecution witnesses' admissions and inconsistencies further weakened the case against the appellant.5. Ultimately, the court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant due to the lack of conclusive evidence linking him to the acceptance of the bribe. The court acquitted the appellant based on the doubts raised by conflicting testimonies, lack of corroboration, and the plausible defense presented. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing acceptance in bribery cases and the need for reliable evidence to secure convictions.