Summary
In a CBI trap case, the High Court acquitted an Income Tax Inspector (A2) and the Assessing Officer (A1) of conspiracy and bribery. The Supreme Court agreed that conspiracy and any demand by A1 were not proved. But a separate charge of demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act stood independently against A2, and it was proved by the complainant, the trap laying officer, partly hostile independent witnesses, the recovery of marked notes and the phenolphthalein test. A2's conviction under Section 7 was restored with a reduced sentence of one year.
Issues
- Whether failure of the conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC required acquittal on a separate charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the demand and acceptance of a bribe by A2 were proved despite the complainant's varying versions of an earlier demand and the partly hostile independent witnesses.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988A separate charge alleged demand and acceptance by each accused, apart from the conspiracy. Demand by A2 on 27.12.2010 and acceptance of the marked notes during the trap were held proved against A2, who as an Inspector involved in the assessment was in a position to influence it. No demand by A1 was proved. (¶¶ 11, 15, 17, 20, 29, 30)
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court's finding that no prior meeting of minds between A1 and A2 was proved was accepted. Since the Section 7 charge was not tied to the conspiracy, failure of the conspiracy charge did not end the case against A2. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A2's conduct when challenged, including staying silent, trying to escape and turning pale, was relevant conduct pointing to guilt, together with the recovery of the marked notes and the pink hand, coat and sweater washes. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The voice recordings before and during the trap were excluded by the trial court for want of the certificate on electronic evidence. The Court held this was rightly done and placed no reliance on them. (¶¶ 16, 22)
Held
- Where a conspiracy charge is coupled with a separate charge of demand and acceptance against each accused that does not depend on a meeting of minds, failure of the conspiracy charge does not defeat the substantive charge, which may be proved against one accused alone. Bhagat Ram, Dashrath Singh Chauhan and A. Srinivasulu were distinguished as turning on their own facts. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The finding that A1 neither demanded a bribe nor was proved to be party to a conspiracy was upheld. A2's statement that the bribe was for A1 could not support a conviction of A1. (¶¶ 9, 15, 30)
- The complainant's differing versions of the amount demanded in October 2010 did not erase the demand by A2 on 27.12.2010. That demand was consistent with the complaint and the statement under Section 161 CrPC and was corroborated by the trap laying officer. (¶ 17)
- Independent witnesses who prevaricate or depart from their earlier statements are not to be wholly discarded; the creditworthy parts of their evidence may be acted on. A complainant in a trap case is not an accomplice, and raiding party members acting in public duty are not interested witnesses. There is no rule that their evidence needs independent corroboration in every case. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- On the evidence of the complainant, the trap laying officer and the two independent witnesses, the pre-trap proceedings, the recovery of the envelope with notes matching the handing over memo from A2's coat pocket, and the positive hand and clothing washes were established, proving acceptance by A2. (¶¶ 18, 22, 25, 28, 29)
- The acquittal of A2 was set aside and his conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act restored, with no conspiracy under Section 120B established. Considering his age, the sentence was reduced from four years' to one year's rigorous imprisonment. (¶¶ 29, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed in part. A2's acquittal was set aside and his conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act restored. His sentence was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with the trial court's fine of Rs.1 lakh and default sentence, and he must surrender within four weeks. The acquittal on the conspiracy charge stands, and the SLP against A1's acquittal had already been dismissed.