In a major decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Constitutional Bench Ruling that allows Circumstantial Evidence does not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As per the prosecution’s case, in April 2000, the Appellant (Neerja Dutta), who was working as an Inspector in the electricity department in the local area, demanded Rs.10, 000 bribe in exchange for installing an electricity meter in the shop of the complainant (who was allegedly murdered later on).
Neeraj Dutta (the appellant) preferred appeal against his conviction under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge, Delhi which was later upheld by the Delhi High Court.
The Apex Court has held that the demand for a bribe cannot be proved but by direct proof or primary evidence as in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of Andhra, and there was also another view that was taken by the Court, that it was not always necessary to prove such demand by way of direct evidence, as in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.
In a recent Judgment of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), the Supreme Court has enunciated that conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not bad in the absence of direct evidence and the guilt could be brought home in the presence of circumstantial evidence.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal noted that “The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence.”
The Court further went on to observe that when reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
