Panch Witness Steps In Where Complainant Vanishes: Delhi High Court Upholds Bribe Conviction

In a significant clarification on proving corruption cases, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the testimony of a shadow witness can alone sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the original informant becomes unavailable.

The Trap at Aya Nagar Check Post

The case dates back to July 1994. Constable Satish Kumar was posted at Mehrauli police station when allegations surfaced that he demanded and accepted ₹1,000 as a bribe from Narender Kumar to return a confiscated identity card. The informant later approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, leading to a trap laid on 30 July 1994. During the operation, phenolphthalein-treated notes were allegedly passed and recovered from the constable’s left pocket, with chemical tests turning positive.

By the time the appeal reached hearing, Constable Satish Kumar had passed away. His legal representatives did not appear, yet the Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

Prosecution’s Reliance on the Shadow Witness

The central controversy revolved around the non-examination of Narender Kumar, the complainant. Summons returned unexecuted multiple times as his whereabouts could not be traced. Defence counsel argued this created a fatal gap because demand and acceptance could not be proved.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, however, found the detailed deposition of PW5 — the panch witness who accompanied the complainant throughout the trap proceedings — both consistent and credible. The witness narrated how the accused demanded money, accepted the tainted notes with his left hand, and kept them in his left pant pocket before the pre-arranged signal was given.

> “It is a settled principle that evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if found wholly reliable.”

The Court also noted that recovery of the currency notes stood undisputed and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act had been rightly invoked once foundational facts of demand and acceptance were established.

Defence Claims of False Implication Fall Flat

The appellant had contended that the raiding party arrived to catch another officer and that he was falsely implicated to justify the operation. The trial court had rejected this version after examining multiple police witnesses who corroborated the sequence of events at the check post.

On the question of sanction, the defence challenged the authority of Additional DCP Vivek Gogia to grant prosecution approval. The High Court examined Sections 12 and 21 of the Delhi Police Act and held that an Additional DCP is competent to appoint and remove constables, thereby satisfying the requirement under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Final Order Leaves No Room for Interference

Finding no infirmity in the 2004 trial court judgment that had sentenced the accused to one year’s rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

> “In light of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.”

The ruling reinforces that the absence of the complainant does not automatically lead to acquittal provided other reliable evidence, especially from a shadowed panch witness, establishes both demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. For prosecutors and investigators handling old traps, the judgment offers clear guidance: a credible shadow witness can carry the case even when the informant disappears.