2018 (10) TMI 1772 - SC - Indian Laws

Charge of Conspiracy - demand of bribe - acquittal of appellant of the charge Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 - installation of electric connection - commission of the offences punishable Under Sections 7 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the prosecution had framed three charges against the Appellant and co-accused-Rajinder Kumar and two out of the three charges namely Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were based on the conspiracy. It is also not in dispute that the Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of conspiracy Under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and Rajinder Kumar (A-1) and accordingly acquitted both of them from the said charge - when the charge against both the Accused in relation to conspiracy was not held proved and both the Accused were acquitted from the said charge which in turn resulted in clean acquittal of Rajinder Kumar from all the charges under the PC Act a fortiori the Appellant too was entitled for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act. It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the Appellant it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the Appellant . It was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the Appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar-co-accused (A-1) - In such circumstances there is no evidence to prove that the Appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the Appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed it cannot be held that money (Rs. 4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the Appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 7 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the Appellant. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 4000/- by the Appellant from the Complainant on 29.03.1995 as per the charges framed against him - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Failure to prove conspiracy charge - Appellant's involvement in demanding and accepting bribe money - Evidence of shadow witness and investigating officer - Legal sustainability of conviction under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conspiracy Charge:
The Trial Court acquitted both the Appellant and co-accused from the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to establish any criminal conspiracy between the Accused. The Trial Court's finding emphasized the lack of evidence to prove the existence of a conspiracy, leading to the acquittal of both Accused from the conspiracy charge.

2. Prosecution's Evidence:
The prosecution's case revolved around the Appellant demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 4000 from the Complainant. The evidence primarily relied on the testimony of a shadow witness, as the investigating officer's credibility was questioned due to past integrity issues. The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the Appellant based on the shadow witness's evidence.

3. Legal Grounds for Acquittal:
The Appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial elements of "demand and acceptance of bribe money" by the Appellant. It was contended that the money was recovered from the possession of the co-accused, not directly accepted by the Appellant.

4. Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court analyzed the legal obligations for proving a case under the PC Act, emphasizing the necessity to establish both the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the Accused. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence demonstrating the Appellant's direct acceptance of the bribe money, especially after the conspiracy charge was not proven.

5. Final Verdict:
Considering the failure to prove the essential elements of the offense and the lack of direct evidence implicating the Appellant in accepting the bribe money, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence under the PC Act, leading to the Appellant's acquittal from the charges. The judgment emphasized the legal requirement of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe money for a valid conviction under the PC Act.

6. Conclusion:
The judgment focused on the legal intricacies of proving corruption charges, highlighting the significance of establishing all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant's acquittal underscored the importance of concrete evidence to support criminal convictions, especially in cases involving corruption allegations.