2025 (5) TMI 1448 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court acquits officer in bribery case citing contradictory witness testimony and procedural lapses

PARITALA SUDHAKAR Versus STATE OF TELANGANA

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that prosecution failed to prove ... Demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or not - existence of triple test for gauging trustworthiness of trap cases or not - HELD THAT:- PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the Appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the Appellant for quarrelling with PW1. However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same. Further, PW1’s version itself during his deposition before the Trial Court is selfcontradictory, inasmuch as initially he stated in his examination-in-chief that both he and the accused officer came back to his house and were drinking tea inside the house, when PW1 came out and kept the amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike. However, when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor concerned, PW1 stated that the Appellant was with him when the tainted currency was kept in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank. Why this aspect is of significance is for the reason that if the Appellant had come out of the house along with PW1 and in full view of the trap party members who were just 20 yards away and could witness the signal from PW1 of removing his spectacles and wiping it and then they would, but naturally, also have seen that PW1 had directly kept the bribe amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant. There was no occasion for the Appellant to be taken inside the house to get his hands dipped in the solution, as the Appellant had not touched the notes. Further, when the solution did not change colour, PW7 states that he called the complainant to narrate what had happened and then, upon coming to know that the money was kept inside the rexine bag directly, the same was recovered and the number of the notes matched with those which had been kept for the purposes of the trap. The actual circumstances leading to the recovered notes being kept by the complainant-PW1 directly in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant are not forthcoming. To further confound the matter, DW1-wife of the complainant stated that her husband/PW1 went outside the house and again came back inside the house with the Appellant. Thereafter, DW1 states, after consuming tea, both went outside. Subsequently, the trap party entered the house along with PW1 and the Appellant. Thus, from all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-Respondent, of both (i) the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence. The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, [2023 (7) TMI 1575 - SUPREME COURT ], while allowing the appeals preferred by the convicts therein, it was observed that when the Court is to choose between the version proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence version, in the face of reasonable doubt towards the prosecution story, the Court should lean in the defence’s favour. The presence of DW1-wife of the complainant inside the house, who prepared the tea, is undisputed. She has stated during deposition that she was not aware of any demand by the Appellant of any money for preparing any report. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and for reasons stated above, the guilt of the Appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having found so, this is a case where benefit of doubt was required to be given to the Appellant. Conclusion - The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, procedural safeguards in trap cases were not complied with, and contradictions in evidence were fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act did not apply. The prior animus between complainant and accused further undermined the prosecution's case. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt. The Judgments of the Courts below are quashed - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court include:(a) Whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.(b) Whether the procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards applicable to trap cases, including the triple test-prior verification of demand, presence of a shadow witness, and successful pH test-were satisfied in the present case.(c) The reliability and trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses' evidence, including contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies.(d) The applicability and operation of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused officer in light of the evidence.(e) The effect of alleged prior animus or altercation between the complainant and the accused on the credibility of the prosecution case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(a) Proof of Demand and Acceptance of BribeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2), criminalizes the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant. The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The Court referred to precedents including Rajesh Gupta v State and K Shantamma v State of Telangana, where convictions were overturned due to inadequate proof of demand.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted material contradictions in the evidence, particularly the sequence and circumstances of the alleged demand and acceptance. The complainant's testimony was internally inconsistent regarding whether the accused was present when the bribe money was placed in the rexine bag attached to the accused's motorcycle. The trap party's actions, including the pH test, were also found to be inexplicable and inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative.Key Evidence and Findings: The trap operation involved the complainant placing Rs. 2,000 in a bag on the accused's motorcycle, followed by a pH test on the accused's hands which was negative. Independent witnesses were not present at the time of demand. The complainant's wife's testimony contradicted the complainant's version, stating no demand was heard during the tea preparation. The Court also noted the absence of prior verification of the demand before laying the trap.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that minor contradictions do not necessarily undermine prosecution evidence unless they go to the root of the matter. However, in this case, the contradictions and procedural lapses created reasonable doubt about the demand and acceptance of bribe.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued that absence of independent witnesses to the demand is common in corruption cases due to the secretive nature of bribe demands. They relied on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act and the presence of a shadow witness who was near the scene. The defence emphasized the lack of verification, absence of a shadow witness at the time of demand, contradictions in witness statements, and prior animus between complainant and accused.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, warranting benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.(b) Procedural Safeguards in Trap CasesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The 'triple test' for trap cases requires prior verification of the demand by the investigating agency, presence of a shadow witness during the trap, and successful pH test on the accused's hands. This standard is established to ensure reliability and prevent false implication, as reiterated in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v State of A.P.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the triple test was not fully satisfied. There was no prior verification of the demand before laying the trap. The presence of a shadow witness at the time of demand was absent. The pH test was negative, and the sequence of events surrounding the trap operation was doubtful.Key Evidence and Findings: The trap party was not present at the moment the bribe demand was allegedly made. The pH test failed to show incriminating evidence. The complainant's inconsistent statements further weakened the procedural integrity of the trap.Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that failure to meet the triple test diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case and increases the risk of wrongful conviction.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued that the secretive nature of bribe demands justifies absence of witnesses and that the presence of mediators and subsequent recovery of money sufficed. The defence highlighted the absence of prior verification and inconsistencies.Conclusions: The Court held that procedural safeguards were not adequately complied with, undermining the prosecution's case.(c) Credibility and Contradictions in Witness TestimoniesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to established principles from Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh and Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka, which instruct that minor discrepancies in testimony do not necessarily discredit a case unless they go to the root of the matter or create serious doubt about truthfulness.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court identified serious contradictions, particularly in the complainant's testimony about the presence of the accused when the bribe was placed, and the sequence of events during the trap. The High Court's prior dismissal of evidence regarding prior altercation was noted as unexplained. The complainant's wife's testimony contradicted the complainant's account of the demand. The Court found these contradictions significant enough to undermine confidence in the prosecution's version.Key Evidence and Findings: Contradictory statements by the complainant and his wife, unexplained inconsistencies in the trap operation, and the absence of independent witnesses to the demand.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that serious contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case warrant benefit of doubt to the accused.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution urged acceptance of the evidence despite discrepancies, emphasizing the secretive nature of corruption. The defence argued the contradictions showed fabrication and animus.Conclusions: The Court found the contradictions fatal to the prosecution case.(d) Applicability of Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption ActRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 20 of the Act imposes a presumption against the accused where illegal gratification is recovered. However, the presumption applies only if demand and acceptance are proved or at least established on a prima facie basis.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that since the demand itself was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked against the accused. The Court relied on Om Parkash v State of Haryana to hold that without proof of demand, Section 20 has no application.Key Evidence and Findings: Recovery of money from the accused's motorcycle bag was not sufficient to invoke presumption in the absence of credible proof of demand and acceptance.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that presumption under Section 20 is conditional upon proof of demand and acceptance.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution relied on the recovery and presumption; the defence countered with absence of demand and inconsistencies.Conclusions: The Court held that Section 20 presumption did not operate against the accused in this case.(e) Effect of Prior Animus Between Complainant and AccusedRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Evidence of prior animus or motive can be relevant to assess the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the possibility of false implication.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the complainant and accused had a prior quarrel, as noted by PW3, which was disregarded by the High Court without explanation. This prior animus raised the possibility that the complaint and trap were motivated by revenge rather than genuine corruption.Key Evidence and Findings: Testimony of PW3 about prior quarrel and reprimand of the accused, and the complainant's failure to disclose prior grievances before lodging the complaint.Application of Law to Facts: The Court considered this factor as relevant to the overall assessment of the prosecution's case and the trustworthiness of the complainant.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defence emphasized prior animus as a motive for false accusation, while the prosecution denied any such motive.Conclusions: The Court found the prior animus to be a factor undermining the prosecution's case.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission.' (Paragraph 17, quoting Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh)'Where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application.' (Paragraph 21, quoting Om Parkash v State of Haryana)'The evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.' (Paragraph 18, quoting Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka)The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, procedural safeguards in trap cases were not complied with, and contradictions in evidence were fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act did not apply. The prior animus between complainant and accused further undermined the prosecution's case. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and quashed the judgments of the Courts below, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.