The Supreme Court of India has held that the acquittal of a co-accused and the failure to establish a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC does not automatically result in the acquittal of another accused on a substantive charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), particularly when a separate charge for the substantive offence has been framed and there is direct and corroborated evidence of demand and acceptance against that accused.
The Apex Court explained that the testimony of a complainant in a trap case is not that of an accomplice and can form the basis for a conviction if the court, after careful scrutiny, finds the witness to be truthful and reliable.
Further, the evidence of independent witnesses who may have turned partially hostile cannot be discarded in its entirety; rather, the court is entitled to consider and act upon the creditworthy parts of their testimony that provide corroboration to the prosecution’s case, such as the recovery of tainted money from the accused and the positive results of scientific tests, added the Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found the demand was not proven due to inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the initial demand amount. It observed that while there was a discrepancy regarding the October 2010 demand, the prosecution witness was consistent about the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the second accused. This specific demand prompted the complaint to the CBI and was corroborated by the complaint itself and the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer (TLO).
On the credibility of Trap Witnesses, the Bench considered the defence’s challenge to the credibility of the complainant as an ‘interested’ witness and the independent witnesses who had partially resiled from their earlier statements. The Bench reiterated that the testimony of a complainant in a trap case is not that of an accomplice and can be acted upon if found truthful, though it requires careful scrutiny.
The Bench also observed that even if independent witnesses are treated as ‘hostile’, their evidence cannot be written off altogether. It found sufficient corroboration from the testimonies regarding the pre-trap proceedings, the apprehension of the second accused, the recovery of the envelope and the positive hand-wash test.
Briefly, the case originates from a complaint made by a partner in a firm, whose income tax assessment was pending before the first accused, a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The second accused, Baljeet Singh, was an Income Tax Inspector subordinate to the first accused. It was alleged that after a meeting with first accused, the second accused followed him out and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs on behalf of the first accused to finalize the assessment. The prosecution witness protested, mentioning a lesser demand of Rs. 1.50 Lakh was made in October 2010, but the second accused persisted.
Following this, the prosecution witness approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which initiated a trap proceeding led by a Trap Laying Officer (TLO). In the presence of two independent witnesses, a pre-trap process was conducted, and a telephonic conversation between prosecution witness and second accused was recorded, wherein the witness stated he had Rs. 2 lakhs, and second accused asked him to come to his office. Tainted currency notes amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs were prepared by smearing them with phenolphthalein powder and placed in an envelope, which was also powdered. The details were recorded in a Handing Over Memo (HOM).
Thereafter, the CBI team and prosecution witness went to the Income Tax Office and the witness handed the envelope containing the money to the second accused, who placed it in his coat pocket. As the second accused followed witness out of the room, the witness gave a pre-arranged signal. The TLO and his team confronted the second accused, took him back into the room, and recovered the envelope from his coat pocket. A subsequent test where second accused’s hands were washed in a sodium carbonate solution resulted in the solution turning pink, confirming contact with the powdered notes.
Accordingly, both the accused were charged under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and also separately under Section 7 of the PC Act. The Trial Court convicted both accused. However, the High Court acquitted both, finding no proof of conspiracy or demand. The CBI’s appeal against the first accused’s acquittal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the present appeal only concerns the acquittal of the second accused.
Appearances:
ASG Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, along with Advocates Mayank Pandey, Rajeshwari Shankar, Akshay Amritanshu, Shashank Bajpai, Praneet Pranav, Aditya Kumar, Siddhant Gupta, Dheeraj B., Mayank Pandey, Rajeshwari Shankar, Akshay Amritanshu, Praveen Pranav, and Shashank Bajpai, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, AORs Vrinda Bhandari and Manish Tiwari, along with Advocates Jasmeet Singh Chadha and Shreya Chauhan, for the Respondent
