Back
of Cannot Sustain Conviction: J&K High Court
In a significant ruling, the has acquitted Habibullah Kumar, a former Incharge Establishment Clerk at the Block Development Office, Larkipora, Anantnag, convicted under the . The Court held that the of a —who is an interested party in the success of the trap—cannot sustain a conviction for bribery when the prosecution's case is riddled with contradictions and the complainant's credibility is undermined.
A Trap That Unravelled
The case originated from a complaint filed on , by Bashir Ahmad Dar, a Helper in the BDO office. Dar alleged that the appellant had demanded ₹300 each from six Helpers for preparing their arrears bills related to in-situ promotions. Dar collected ₹1,800 from the group and approached the . A trap team was assembled, and after pre-trap formalities, Dar entered the appellant's office while a , Nazir Ahmad Lone, stood outside near a window. The prosecution claimed the appellant demanded and accepted the money, which was later recovered from his trouser pocket.
The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹21,000. But the High Court found the conviction unsustainable.
Contradictions and Prior Discord Undermine the Case
The Court carefully examined the evidence and found critical weaknesses. The five other Helpers, on whose behalf Dar claimed to have collected the bribe, categorically testified that they never contributed any money and that the appellant never demanded a bribe from them. The complainant himself contradicted his own complaint (EXTP-1), where he had stated he collected ₹300 each from his associates, later claiming in cross-examination that this was wrongly recorded.
Moreover, evidence emerged of prior enmity between the complainant and the appellant. The Block Development Officer testified that Dar was a “short-tempered person” who had tried to secure daily wage engagement for his brother and that the appellant was an “honest person.” One witness, Manzoor Ahmad Mir, even stated there was a land dispute between the two. The High Court noted that the Trap Laying Officer had failed to conduct of the complaint, despite the 's mandate in Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) to do so.
The ’s Fatal Admission
The , Nazir Ahmad Lone, dealt a decisive blow to the prosecution. He admitted he did not actually see the exchange of money or understand the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. He only stood outside and heard some exchange, but could not confirm whether a demand or acceptance occurred. In his cross-examination, he stated, “I did not see the acceptance or demand of bribe money by the appellant/accused.” He also revealed that when the trap team entered, the appellant was “crying that he has been falsely implicated.”
The other members of the trap team similarly conceded they did not witness the transaction. This left the of complainant Bashir Ahmad Dar as the sole evidence supporting the during the trap.
Legal Principle: as
Justice Sanjay Dhar, who authored the judgment, relied on the 's decision in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979), which held that a may be treated as a person interested in the success of the trap. The Court quoted:
“A may perhaps be considered as a person interested in the success of the trap and that may entitle a court to view his evidence as that of an .”
The Court further referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (2023), which clarified that there is no abstract rule against relying on of a bribe giver, but such testimony must be scrutinized carefully. In this case, the Court found the complainant to be a “highly motivated and biased person,” making his unreliable.
Conviction Quashed: Consistent in Inconsistency
The High Court pointed out that the trial court’s own judgment contained contradictory findings. At one point, it noted that “demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant are not proved,” yet it still convicted the appellant. The Court described these observations as “not only inconsistent and contrary to each other but the same suffer from .”
Setting aside the conviction and sentence, the Court held:
“When the statement of the complainant with regard to of bribe money during the trap proceedings is taken out of consideration, being unreliable in nature, there remains no evidence on record, either direct or circumstantial, to prove that the appellant/accused had demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant during the trap proceedings.”
The appellant, who had remained on bail during the appeal, was acquitted of all charges. His bail and surety bonds were discharged.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces the standard that in corruption cases, the prosecution must prove both of bribe . It reiterates that the testimony of a , especially when uncorroborated and when the complainant has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, cannot alone sustain a conviction. The case is a reminder of the importance of and the need for trap teams to ensure transparency and direct observation during operations.
