1978 (11) TMI 166 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Affirms Bribery Conviction: Testimony of Trap Witness Credible Despite Retractions by Panch Witnesses.

Prakash Chand Versus State (Delhi Administration)

The SC upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, an Overseer-Section Officer, under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC.2. Reliability of the testimony of P.W. 6.3. Credibility and conduct of Panch witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2).4. Admissibility of the accused's conduct when questioned by the police.5. Requirement of corroboration for the testimony of a 'trap witness.'Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC:The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, leading to the appellant's appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court. The prosecution's case involved the accused, an Overseer-Section Officer, demanding a bribe of Rs. 30/- from P.W. 6, an architect, for permitting corrections in building plans. A trap was set, and the accused was caught with the marked currency notes.2. Reliability of the testimony of P.W. 6:The defense argued that the conviction was based on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 6, who was described as a 'trap witness.' The Supreme Court held that a conviction could be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the court is satisfied that the witness is truthful. The Court found P.W. 6 to be a truthful witness who gave evidence in a straightforward manner and was unshaken during cross-examination. The Court rejected the defense's suggestion that P.W. 6 was aggrieved with the accused and had a motive to falsely implicate him.3. Credibility and conduct of Panch witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2):Both Panch witnesses did not fully support the prosecution's case and resiled from their earlier statements during the investigation. The Supreme Court noted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not truthful witnesses and had given evidence to accommodate the accused. Their evidence was contradicted by their earlier statements to the police. The Court clarified that the lower courts had not treated the statements made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the police as substantive evidence but had used them to confront the witnesses and reject their testimony.4. Admissibility of the accused's conduct when questioned by the police:The defense contended that the evidence relating to the accused's conduct when questioned by the police was inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC. The Supreme Court disagreed, distinguishing between the conduct of a person against whom an offense is alleged (admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act) and statements made to a police officer during an investigation (excluded by Section 162 CrPC). The Court cited previous judgments to support the admissibility of evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when confronted by the police.5. Requirement of corroboration for the testimony of a 'trap witness':The defense argued that the testimony of a trap witness required corroboration. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, stating that corroboration might be sought in appropriate cases but was not invariably required. The Court found corroboration for P.W. 6's testimony in the report he gave to P.W. 9, the conduct of the accused when questioned by P.W. 9, and the circumstances of the accused being ready with the file and placing it under the table after receiving the bribe.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, after considering the entire evidence, was satisfied that the appellant was rightly convicted. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the other minor points raised by the defense. The judgment upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC.