Appeal
Appeal against the conviction confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court
2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-Convict (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’). The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the Judgment dated 29.01.2008 of the learned Additional Special Judge for Special Police Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Calendar1 Case No.19 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months.
Facts
Demanded of rs. 2000 as bribe for conduct inquiry and prepare damaged trees report for claiming compensation
3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRO’) posted at Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting an inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when the complainant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PW1’) approached the Appellant to discuss a matter regarding compensation for the damaged trees, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report. It was further alleged that on 07.08.2003, PW1 met the accused officer and requested that he is not in a position to pay such huge amount, whereupon the accused officer is said to have stated that unless the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) is paid to him, he would not come to the village for inspection. It is alleged that the Appellant finally asked PW1 to come with the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and meet him at his residence at Mothukur Village on 11.08.2003.
PW.7 registered case
4. Aggrieved by these demands, PW1 filed a written complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW7’) on 08.08.2003. PW7 registered a case being Cr. No.19/ACB-HR/2003 against the Appellant under Section 7 of the Act, on 11.08.2003.
Trap proceedings
5. On 11.08.2003, in presence of independent mediators, PW1 and others, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. The trap party then went to the Appellant’s house. The house of the Appellant was found locked and PW1 was informed by the Appellant’s neighbours that the Appellant had gone to the MRO at Gundala. From the house, independent witness-PW2 and PW1 went on scooter to the MRO, where PW7 and the other trap members followed them in a jeep. PW1 met the Appellant in the MRO. The Appellant informed that he would come over to Ambala Village and meet him. PW1 and PW2 came out of the office and informed PW7 that the Appellant would meet him at Ambala Village. Again, PW1 and the trap party members went to Ambala Village and waited there. Around 6 PM, the Appellant came on his motorcycle and PW1 approached him, whereafter the Appellant and PW1 both went to PW1’s house on their respective vehicles. Both vehicles were parked in front of PW1’s house. The Appellant visited the garden/fields of PW1 and thereafter returned to PW1’s house.
Bribe money was asked to be kept in the said bag once kept PW.1 signal the trap party then the money as recovered from the rexine bag
6.The Appellant had tea and informed that he would conduct ‘panchanama’ in the presence of the mediators in the garden and asked PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of his motorcycle. Accordingly, PW1 kept the bribe amount in the said bag. PW1 then signalled to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the Appellant. The trap party then approached the Appellant and questioned him regarding the bribe amount. Tests were conducted on the hands of the Appellant which proved negative. However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s motorcycle.
Trial court convicted the appellant
7. On 29.01.2008, considering the evidence and after hearing arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
Hon’ble High Court confirmed the Trial court and dismissed the appeal
8. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s Judgment dated 29.01.2008, the Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 before the High Court and on 06.03.2024, the High Court delivered the Impugned Judgment, whereby it dismissed the Criminal Appeal on the grounds that the prosecution had successfully established the element of demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis
Analysis, Reasoning and Conclusion
Material contradictions in evidence
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. In this connection, it would not be out of place to take note of the observations in Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 to the following effect:
‘29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi v. State of M.P. [Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649: 2000 SCC (Cri) 26], Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525: 2000 SCC (Cri) 222] , Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh [Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435], Vijay v. State of M.P. [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639], Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police [Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 42], Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. [Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 685] and Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab [Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 564].)’ (emphasis supplied)
18. In Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, it was observed as under:
‘26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence of witness is bound to happen because there would be considerable gap between the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before the court, but if these contradictions create such serious doubt in the mind of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears to the court that there is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such evidence.
28. In the case on hand, the evidence of the eyewitnesses is only consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all other factors there are lot of contradictions which go to the root of the matter.
xxx
32. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of independent witnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in the broad daylight. Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.’ (emphasis supplied)
19. To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the Appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the Appellant for quarrelling with PW1. However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same. Further, PW1’s 12 version itself during his deposition before the Trial Court is selfcontradictory, inasmuch as initially he stated in his examination-in-chief that both he and the accused officer came back to his house and were drinking tea inside the house, when PW1 came out and kept the amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike. However, when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor concerned, PW1 stated that the Appellant was with him when the tainted currency was kept in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank. Why this aspect is of significance is for the reason that if the Appellant had come out of the house along with PW1 and in full view of the trap party members who were just 20 yards away and could witness the signal from PW1 of removing his spectacles and wiping it and then they would, but naturally, also have seen that PW1 had directly kept the bribe amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant. In this background, the statement of PW7 that when the Appellant was already on his motorcycle and was about to start it, he was stopped and taken inside the house, where he was made to dip his hand in the solution mixed with water, but his hands did not change colour, is inexplicable for the reason that the trap party members had already witnessed the complainant directly putting the tainted notes, allegedly as demanded by the Appellant, in the rexine bag. Thus, there was no occasion for the Appellant to be taken inside the house to get his hands dipped in the solution, as the Appellant had not touched the notes. Further, when the solution did not change colour, PW7 states that he called the complainant to narrate what had happened and then, upon coming to know that the money was kept inside the rexine bag directly, the same was recovered and the number of the notes matched with those which had been kept for the purposes of the trap. The actual circumstances leading to the recovered notes being kept by the complainant-PW1 directly in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant are not forthcoming. To further confound the matter, DW1-wife of the complainant stated that her husband/PW1 went outside the house and again came back inside the house with the Appellant. Thereafter, DW1 states, after consuming tea, both went outside. Subsequently, the trap party entered the house along with PW1 and the Appellant. Thus, from all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-Respondent, of both (i) the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence. The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion. In Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038, while allowing the appeals preferred by the convicts therein, it was observed that when the Court is to choose between the version proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence version, in the face of reasonable doubt towards the prosecution story, the Court should lean in the defence’s favour.
DW-1 did not aware of any demand of bribe
20. One further aspect which the Court would like to dwell on is that as per the version of the witnesses themselves, at the very least, what is common is that the Appellant had taken a round of the horticulture garden of the complainant for preparing a report relating to the claim of insurance/compensation for PW1’s trees which were destroyed due to drought, whereafter the Appellant returned to the house and had tea. The presence of DW1-wife of the complainant inside the house, who prepared the tea, is undisputed. She has stated during deposition that she was not aware of any demand by the Appellant of any money for preparing any report. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and for reasons stated above, we find that the guilt of the Appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having found so, this is a case where benefit of doubt was required to be given to the Appellant.
Presumption under section 20 Prevention of Corruption Act
21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
“22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 SCALE 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 SCALE 116])” (emphasis supplied)
Conclusion
Appeal allowed
22. Accordingly, for reasons afore-stated, the instant appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt. The Judgments of the Courts below are quashed.
Judgments involved with citations are:
1. Trial Court Judgment dated 29.01.2008 by the Additional Special Judge for Special Police Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at Hyderabad (no separate citation provided).
2. High Court Judgment dated 06.03.2024 by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (no separate citation provided).
3. Supreme Court Judgment 2025 INSC 655, dated 09.05.2025, authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
4. Referenced Cases With citation:
– Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195
– Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98
– Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689
– Rajesh Gupta v State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107
– K Shantamma v State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574
– Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038
– Om Parkash v State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250
– Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas, (2005) 12 SCC 576
– T. Subramanian v. State of T.N., (2006) 1 SCC 401
The Acts and Sections involved are:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
– Section 7
– Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
– Section 20 (presumption under the Act)
Party
Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana – Criminal Appeal No. 2541 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6066/2024] – 2025 INSC 655 – May 9, 2025 – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
