Summary
A forest officer’s corruption conviction was set aside because demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe were not proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. Call records contradicted the complainant, the shadow witness was his close friend, a trap participant had a prior grievance, and the complainant admitted access to the bag holding the money. The failure to clarify that admission and obtain forensic testing strengthened reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- How contradictory testimony, call records, trap-witness selection and access to the accused’s bag affected the prosecution case.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), as applicable to the alleged offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Applying Neeraj Dutta, the Court examined whether reliable direct or circumstantial evidence proved the alleged demand and acceptance; the evidentiary deficiencies required acquittal. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
Held
- The prosecution must establish the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through reliable evidence; circumstantial proof is permissible. Applying Neeraj Dutta required examination of the foundational facts rather than inference of guilt from recovery alone. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The complainant’s account of repeated and proximate telephone demands was contradicted by the proved call records. Material changes about who made the alleged calls, together with the other inconsistencies, undermined the demand story. (¶¶ 34, 41, 49, 51, 52, 53)
- The trap officer failed to verify the alleged demand or enlist an independent shadow witness. The complainant’s close friend acted in that role, while a person earlier subjected to the officer’s substantial compounding fee participated as a panch and was not examined at trial. These circumstances materially impaired confidence in this trap. (¶¶ 30, 31, 44, 45, 47, 48, 55)
- The complainant admitted picking up the accused’s unattended bag and returning it to him, providing an opportunity to place the money in it. The prosecution did not clarify that admission through re-examination; the High Court could not simply reject it as an afterthought. (¶¶ 35, 36, 53, 54)
- No forensic examination of the hand and bag washes was obtained to substantiate handling of the tainted notes. Considered with the contradictions and weaknesses in the trap evidence, the prosecution failed to prove its case safely and the accused was entitled to acquittal. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 57, 58)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction judgments set aside and appellant acquitted. Being on bail, he need not surrender; bail bonds discharged.