Direct evidence not necessary to convict public servant for bribery: Supreme Court
In a decision which could have a significant bearing on conviction of corrupt public servants, the Supreme Court on Thursday (December 15) ruled that direct evidence is not necessary against a public servant in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The top court said circumstantial evidence can be considered enough to establish guilt and allow conviction.
A five-judge bench led by Justice S Abdul Nazeer ruled that it is permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability or guilt of the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The bench, which also included justices AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna, observed that both complainants and the prosecution should make sincere efforts to ensure corrupt public servants are brought to book.
Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available because of death or any other reason, including the complainant turning hostile, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through evidence based on circumstances.
The judgement on Thursday followed a 2019 reference by a three-judge bench which expressed reservations with a previous line of judgement of the top court that stated that failure to prove the demand of illegal gratification due to death of complainant would be fatal to the prosecution case and recovery of the bribe amount from the accused would not entail his conviction.
In 2019, a reference was made by a division bench to the larger bench after observing that insistence of direct proof may not be in consonance with the view taken many judgments wherein despite the absence of primary evidence of the complainant, the Supreme Court had sustained the conviction of the accused by relying on other evidence.
It had said, “Insistence of direct proof or primary evidence for proving the demand may not be in consonance with the view taken by this court in number of judgments. The learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to other cases to substantiate her contention that Satyanarayana had not taken note of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court. We are not delving into the controversy any further.”
The five-judge bench on Thursday said, “In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact can be either proved by direct evidence, in nature of oral evidence/documentary evidence. Further, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct, oral or documentary evidence.”
The bench also said that if the complainant turns hostile or has died or was unable to provide evidence, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by the evidence of any other witness either orally or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
“In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unable to let in his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence either orally or documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the public servant,” the Constitution Bench added.
