When the Complainant Turns Hostile: Sustaining Bribery Convictions Through Trap Evidence

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has reaffirmed that a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) does not necessarily collapse just because a complainant turns hostile. In the case of Vivek Sahu vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh , the Court clarified that corroborative evidence from trap proceedings is sufficient to establish guilt when foundational facts are clearly proven.

The Shadow of the Arrest Warrant

The case originated from a complaint filed by one Devi Singh, who alleged that Constable Vivek Sahu, then posted at Police Station Shahpura Bhitoni, was harassing him regarding an outstanding arrest warrant despite the complainant having been granted bail. Sahu allegedly demanded Rs. 5,000 for compliance, of which Rs. 3,000 had already been paid. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was the subject of the subsequent trap operation conducted by the Lokayukta police.

Arguments: Enmity vs. Evidence

The appellant, Vivek Sahu, argued that the entire case was a fabrication born of deep-seated animosity. He claimed the complainant, harboring a grudge after being jailed, attempted to force currency notes into his pocket at a local pan shop as a setup.

Conversely, the State argued that the demand and acceptance were proved through robust documentary evidence, including the initial complaints and the successful phenolphthalein test, which turned pink upon the recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant's possession.

Legal Analysis: The Weight of Circumstance

The Court’s analysis centered on the critical question: Does the hostility of a complainant unravel the prosecution’s case? Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) , Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani noted that the proof of demand and acceptance is sine qua non for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. However, in the absence of primary evidence from the complainant, the Court is permitted to draw an inferential deduction of guilt based on surrounding circumstances.

While the complainant turned hostile, the Court meticulously examined the testimony of other witnesses, including the shadow witness, trap team members, and the forensic results. It found that the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the positive phenolphthalein test were irrefutable links in the chain of events.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores that court proceedings are a search for truth, not merely a reliance on the consistency of a single witness:

• "It is a well settled principle of law that even if the complainant turns hostile, still the accused can be held guilty on the basis of surrounding circumstances."
• "In the absence of evidence of the complainant... it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant... based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution."
• "Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence... [but] the proof of demand can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in absence of oral or documentary evidence."

The Final Verdict: Justice Prevails

Addressing the trial court's decision, Justice Vani affirmed that no illegality or perversity was found in the conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the prosecution had effectively met the burden of proof through documentary and circumstantial evidence.

The appellant's bail bonds were canceled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve his sentence. This judgment serves as a vital reminder to investigators that while the testimony of a complainant is important, the integrity of a trap procedure and the strength of objective evidence remain the bedrock of anticorruption litigation.