Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Human Singh Nishad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 639 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Krishna Tandon
For the Respondents: Ruhul Ameen Memon
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. In the absence of corroborated evidence regarding these core requirements, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Conviction for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Requirement of proof - Prosecution must establish demand and acceptance as a fact in issue - In absence of foundational facts, conviction cannot be sustained - Mere recovery without proof of prior demand is insufficient. (Paras 16, 18)
(B) Evidence - Hostile witnesses - Credibility of prosecution case - Where essential witnesses turn hostile and fail to support the version of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance, the case is rendered doubtful - Burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 19)
Facts of the case:
A public servant was alleged to have demanded a bribe to initiate the issuance of a requisite land transfer certificate. A trap was initiated by law enforcement authorities. However, during the trial, the complainant and primary witnesses turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution’s version of the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for a conviction. Evidence indicated that the complainant had already secured the required order prior to the trap date. Furthermore, as the key witnesses did not corroborate the demand, and given the failure to recover the alleged bribe amount from the person of the accused during the trap, the prosecution's case was found to be lacking in credible evidence.
Issues: Whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were sufficiently proven by the prosecution to establish guilt under the relevant anti-corruption provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the relevant statutes. In the absence of reliable direct or circumstantial evidence to establish these facts, and where the primary witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution cannot secure a conviction. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding conviction legality. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence and witness hostility effect. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. standard of proof for demand and acceptance in bribery cases. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final acquittal based on failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 20 , 21) |
AFR
CAV Judgment
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 28.07.2005 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 20/2002 by Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 20/2002, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced them as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. | R.I for 02 years with fine amount of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I for 02 months. |
| U/S 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | R. I for 03 years with fine amount of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I for 03 months. |
(Both substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Malikram Sahu is the resident of village Jammuda, Police Station- Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), he had a dealing with Indrajit Gaud of his village regarding purchase of 1.96 acre land. As the land was in possession of one Indrajit Gaud, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste, his land cannot be purchased from an Unreserved caste person without the permission of the Collector. As such, the complainant Malikram Sahu went to the office of Collector, for taking no objection certificate (NOC) regarding purchase of land from Indrajit Gaud and the complainant gave an application on the last week of January, 2001. Regarding this, the Collector had sent the application to the Tehsil office Mahasamund and after that, the same was sent to the SDM office Mahasamund, (C.G.). When the complainant Malikram Sahu did not receive the no objection certificate for land transfer, he went to the office of Collector Mahasamund for multiple times, there he met the reader of Collector Mahasamund, accused Human Singh Nishad. Then the accused told him that the work will not be done without paying some money. On this, the complainant Malikram Sahu again went to the Collector’s office Mahasamund on 23.04.2001 and met the reader, Human Singh Nishad, whereupon a demand of Rs. 8,000/- was raised by the accused/appellant and he further mentioned that if his demand is met, he would release the applicant’s no objection certificate (NOC) and told the complainant to bring the said money. Since, the complainant did not want to give money to the accused/appellant, therefore, on 24.04.2001, the complainant along with his acquaintance Tikas lal Sahu went to Police Officer, Lokayukta Office Raipur on 24.04.2001 and the complainant submitted a written complaint as Ex. P/26 and on the basis of complaintg the Superintendent of Police authorized Police Inspector Ramkumar Sharma to take legal action on the application and gave the complainant a micro tape recorder cassette and instructed him to go to the reader i.e., accused/appellant Human Singh Nishad and talk to him regarding the bribe amount and inform it over the telephone. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of Human Singh Nishad in the evening of the same day and recorded the conversation regarding bribe amount of Rs. 8,000/- with the accused/appellant and then he informed about the incident over telephone to the Deputy Superintendent Police, Mr. Banjare. On this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Banjare instructed the complainant Malikram Sahu to go to village Godhari on 25.04.2001 at 01:00 pm. The complainant Malikram Sahu again submitted an application on 25.04.2001 vide Ex. P
