2026 (3) TMI 503 - SC - Indian Laws

Evidence Corroboration: conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act sustained on pre trap procedures and marked note recovery despite absence of certified recordings.

Conviction of one accused for demand and acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act is restored on the ground that independent witness testimony of ... Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC - Challenged the order of Acquittal of the second accused (A2) on charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - phenolphthalein test - relevance of conduct of accused - corroboration by independent witnesses​​​​​​​ - hostile witness credibility - testimony of trap and independent witnesses may corroborate trap proceedings - admissibility of electronic evidence. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC - HELD THAT:- The Court accepted the High Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove a prior meeting of minds between the two accused. There was no evidence that A1 ever made a demand or that A2 made the alleged demand in A1's presence; the charge-sheet alleged a conspiracy but the proof as to A1's role and any common intention was absent. Consequently, the conspiracy allegation could not be sustained. [Paras 9, 30] The conspiracy under Section 120B is not proved and cannot be sustained against the accused. Conviction under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance of bribe sustained - testimony of trap and independent witnesses may corroborate trap proceedings - statement of co-accused insufficient to establish culpability of other accused - HELD THAT:- The Court found that, notwithstanding the failure to establish conspiracy or A1's culpability, the evidence proved demand and acceptance by A2. PW1's testimony of the demand on the crucial dates was corroborated by the Trap Laying Officer (PW22) and by the independent witnesses (PW10 and PW18) as to pre-trap proceedings, recovery of the powdered envelope containing the marked notes and the hand/garment wash turning pink. Electronic voice recordings were excluded, but the Court relied on the contemporaneous pre-trap documentation (HOM), identification of marked notes and the conduct at the trap as sufficient corroboration. The Court also held that a statement attributing the demand to A1 by A2 (or by one accused against another) cannot be the basis to convict A1 in absence of independent proof. [Paras 6, 18, 22, 29, 30] Acquittal of A2 is set aside; conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act is restored against A2. Sentence reduced by the Court to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine as modified by the Court, and related default sentence restored. Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the High Court's acquittal on the conspiracy charge is upheld as to its rationale that no conspiracy was proved, but the acquittal of A2 on the substantive offence under Section 7 of the PC Act is set aside and his conviction and a modified sentence are restored; A1's culpability remains unproven. Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal of the accused Baljeet Singh (A2) should be set aside and conviction restored for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Whether there is proof of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 implicating both accused, and whether the acquittal of the Assessing Officer (A1) should be disturbed.Issue (i): Whether the evidence of demand, pre-trap proceedings, recovery of marked currency and corroboration by independent witnesses suffices to convict A2 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Analysis: The prosecution produced the complainant's testimony, the trap laying officer's evidence, two independent witnesses confirming pre-trap formalities and recovery, Handing Over Memo with note serial numbers, recovery of the powdered marked notes from the person apprehended, and conduct of the accused at apprehension. Electronic voice recordings were not relied upon for lack of Section 65B certification. The evidence of independent witnesses was examined against their prior statements; parts favourable to prosecution were treated as corroborative. Relevant conduct and recovery of marked notes were treated as admissible corroboration under principles permitting consideration of raiding party testimony where creditworthy parts exist.Conclusion: Conviction of A2 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is restored; sentence is modified to one year RI with fine of Rs. 1 lakh and default simple imprisonment of three months, and A2 ordered to surrender within four weeks.Issue (ii): Whether criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is proved against both accused such that A1's acquittal must be set aside.Analysis: The prosecution alleged a prior meeting of minds and earlier demand; discrepancies existed in PW1's account regarding an alleged October demand and amounts. There was no direct evidence that A1 made or jointly demanded the bribe or that A2 made the demand in A1's presence. Pre-trap and trap evidence established demand and acceptance by A2 but failed to establish a conspiratorial meeting of minds implicating A1.Conclusion: Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not proved as against A1; acquittal of A1 stands.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part by restoring the conviction of A2 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with a reduced sentence, while the acquittal of A1 on the conspiracy and related charges is affirmed; the judgment effects a partial reversal of the High Court's order.Ratio Decidendi: Where independent and corroborative evidence of pre-trap formalities, recovery of marked currency and conduct of the accused at apprehension satisfactorily establish demand and acceptance, conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 may be sustained even if electronic recordings are not relied upon; however, absence of direct evidence of a meeting of minds precludes conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against a co-accused.