1975 (9) TMI 196 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Succeeds: Appellant Acquitted Due to Unreliable Evidence and Uncorroborated Witness Testimonies in Corruption Case.

Sat Paul Versus Delhi Administration

The SC allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of the charges. The court determined that the prosecution's ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of using the appellant's silence as evidence.2. Credibility of the prosecution witnesses.3. Use of hostile witness testimony.4. Corroboration of interested witnesses' testimony.5. Defence evidence and its consideration.6. Applicability of the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Using the Appellant's Silence as Evidence:The court discussed whether the appellant's silence when accused of receiving a bribe could be considered as evidence. It was argued that this silence amounted to a statement made to the police during the investigation and was thus inadmissible under Section 162 of the CrPC. The court noted that even if admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, its probative value was almost nil, considering the appellant's explanation that he remained silent out of fear of further complications.2. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses:The court scrutinized the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Ramesh (PW 1), Dal Chand (PW 7), and Inspector Paras Nath (PW 9). It was highlighted that PWs 1 and 7 were of questionable character, involved in immoral activities, and had a possible motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court emphasized that their testimony was replete with discrepancies and contradictions, making it unreliable without corroboration from independent sources.3. Use of Hostile Witness Testimony:The court clarified the legal position regarding the use of hostile witness testimony, referencing Jagir Singh v. State. It was stated that when a prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted by the party calling him, his evidence cannot be dismissed entirely as a matter of law. The judge must consider whether the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in part. In this case, the court found it improper for the lower courts to use bits of the hostile witnesses' testimony to support the prosecution's case.4. Corroboration of Interested Witnesses' Testimony:The court stressed the need for corroboration of the testimony of interested witnesses, especially when they have bad antecedents and a motive to harm the accused. The court found that the evidence of the trap witnesses (PWs 1, 7, and 9) was unconfirmed and uncorroborated by any independent evidence. It was deemed highly unsafe to convict the appellant based on their testimony alone.5. Defence Evidence and Its Consideration:The court noted that the defence evidence, particularly from D. Ws. 3 and 5, was not successfully impeached in cross-examination and was not adequately considered by the High Court. The defence witnesses testified that the appellant was in police uniform patrolling the platform at the material time and was not wearing the pants from which the tainted currency notes were recovered. This raised the possibility that the notes were implanted by Dal Chand.6. Applicability of the Presumption Under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The trial court had invoked the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to convict the appellant. However, the court found that the evidence did not support the presumption of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the presumption could not be applied in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent sources.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and acquitted him of the charges. The court found that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, uncorroborated, and tainted by the questionable character of the witnesses. The defence evidence was credible and raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.