The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of the bribe, the importance of reliable witness testimony, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Hereinafter called PC Act).

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant-Durga Singh Munda was appointed to the post of orderly in Government High School but his salary was not released after his joining. The appellant was posted as Assistant, in District Education Office, Saraikela and he demanded Rs.5000/-as bribe for processing and getting his salary released. In this regard complaint was made to S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on 19.04.2020 and after completing the procedural formalities, the trap team was arranged and raid was conducted in which the appellant accused was apprehended by the trap team with Rs.5000/-which he received from the complainant.

3. The accused was put up on trial for offences under Sections 7/13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and convicted.

4. Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exhibits 1-10 have been adduced into evidence. Apart from this, one G.C note of Rs.1000/-denomination and 8 of Rs.500/-have also been marked as material exhibits.

5. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the basic ingredients of the offence of illegal demand, acceptance and recovery have not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence suffers from discrepancies and contradictions. There is no explanation that when the complaint was verified on 22.04.2010 but the verification report was submitted after nearly a month on 19.05.2010. The appellant was not arrested immediately after the acceptance of the said bribe from the house but was apprehended from his office.

The main thrust of the argument is that the trap team and shadow witness was not present as per the prosecution case at the time when the amount was accepted by the accused. As per the prosecution version the complainant visited the house of the appellant alone and the payment was made there in the absence of any witness. The case rests on uncorroborated testimony of the official witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubt particularly when PW8 and PW 9 have not fully supported the prosecution case. PW 8 has deposed in the cross-examination at para 5 that nothing had been shown to him and he merely signed over the papers produced before him. PW 9 in para 5 has also deposed that nothing had been seized in his presence. House of the accused was at a distance of 3 km from the office and he had not gone there. It is contended on these evidence that in the absence of any independent evidence on the point of demand, acceptance or recovery charge is not proved. Reliance has been placed on the following authorities on behalf of the appellant:

a. (2011) 6 SCC 450 -In this case the complainant was not examined, apart from other infirmities in the prosecution case, therefore the Judgment of acquittal was upheld.

b. (2017) 8 SCC 136—In this case the factum of demand was not proved and therefore the accused was acquitted.

c. (2014) 13 SCC 55—The complainant had turned hostile, therefore the conviction was set aside.

d. (2015) 10 SCC 152 The complainant had died before his examination as witness and therefore benefit of doubt extended to him.

6. Before adverting to the plea taken in appeal, it will be worthwhile to consider the settled law on the point. Hon’ble Apex Court in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 held:

18. Further, corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three categories viz. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However, in a case in which a witness is wholly relia