Summary
The Court set aside the deceased public servant’s bribery conviction in an appeal pursued by his legal heir. Demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt: vague allegations, a stray inquiry whether money had been brought and contradictions about the trap’s location did not supply the indispensable proof.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7, 13 and 20, as considered in this 2017 judgment, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Proof of demand was treated as essential to the charged offences and to the presumption relied upon; recovery alone could not substitute for it. (¶ 13–15)
Held
- The initial payment allegation lacked a date and material particulars, and the person allegedly present was not examined. The complainant’s and shadow witness’s isolated account of an inquiry about money did not establish demand in the evidentiary context. (¶ 18–25)
- Material contradictions concerning the transaction’s location and the overall quality of the trap evidence reinforced reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s burden remained despite the accused not independently proving his claim of false implication. (¶ 26–27)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment affirming the conviction and sentence set aside because the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.