Madras High Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case Despite Hostile Witness and Minor Contradictions

Madras High Court Upholds Doctor's Bribery Conviction, Reduces Sentence

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Crl.A(MD)No.213 of 2019, has upheld the conviction of a government doctor for demanding and accepting a bribe, albeit reducing the sentence. Justice G.Ilangovan presided over the case, dismissing the appeal filed by Dr. A.S. Ramesh against the judgment of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur.

Case Background: Demand for ₹300 Bribe for CT Scan Referral

The case originated from a complaint filed in 2005 against Dr. A.S. Ramesh , then a Senior Assistant Surgeon at the Government Hospital in Srivilliputhur. The prosecution alleged that Dr. Ramesh demanded a bribe of ₹300 from V. Jothirajan , husband of a patient, Nallammal , for issuing a requisition letter for a CT scan at the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar. A trap was laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, and Dr. Ramesh was caught allegedly accepting the bribe at his private clinic. He was subsequently charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court convicted Dr. Ramesh on both counts.

Arguments and Hostile Witness

The prosecution presented testimonies from 14 witnesses, including the complainant, trap laying officer, and shadow witnesses, along with documentary evidence. The defense, while examining one witness, argued inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly highlighting that the primary complainant (PW2) turned hostile during the trial. The defense also pointed to contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the trap proceedings and the alleged recovery of the bribe money. A significant point raised was the loss of the tainted money while in court custody, hindering its examination.

The defense argued that the initial demand for bribe on 28/02/2005 was not established due to the complainant and a corroborating witness turning hostile. They also contested the trap event at the private clinic in Rajapalayam , citing inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding time and location. Reliance was placed on judgments emphasizing the importance of proving demand in corruption cases, such as Prabhat Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and M.R.Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka .

The prosecution countered by arguing that despite the complainant turning hostile, his initial complaint and the evidence from other witnesses, particularly the shadow witness (PW4) and trap laying officer (PW13), corroborated the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The prosecution emphasized the positive sodium carbonate test on the accused's hands, indicating handling of the tainted money. They cited Supreme Court precedents like Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka to support the principle that hostile witness testimony should not be entirely discarded and can be considered along with other evidence. Reference was also made to Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi) regarding the overall assessment of evidence in corruption cases.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Ilangovan acknowledged the inconsistencies and the fact that the complainant turned hostile. However, the Court found that the prosecution successfully established the demand at the time of the trap through the credible testimony of the shadow witness (PW4). The Court observed, "Regarding the recovery also, I find no major contradiction in the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW13. Except the minor contradictions regarding the event of attempt to swallow the money, I find that absolutely no circumstance was brought on record by the appellant to disbelieve them. The appreciation of the evidence of the trial court warrants no interference."

The Court dismissed the argument concerning procedural lapses, stating that violation of manual guidelines alone does not vitiate prosecution, especially when circumstantial evidence is strong. The Court concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction.

Final Verdict: While upholding the conviction, the High Court, considering the age of the case (dating back to 2005), the small amount of bribe involved (₹300), and other factors, reduced the sentence from three years of rigorous imprisonment for each offense to one year of rigorous imprisonment for both offenses, to run concurrently. The fines imposed by the trial court were maintained. The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed with this modification in sentence.