Law Maker

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Supreme Court of India · 15 December 2022 · 5 judges

If the complainant's direct evidence of a bribe demand is unavailable, demand and acceptance can be proved by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, and guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act inferred.

Facts

A two-Judge Bench, by order dated 28.02.2019, doubted P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police (2015), which had held that where the complainant had died, inferential deductions could not sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A three-Judge Bench, by order dated 27.08.2019, noted that B. Jayaraj (2014) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy appeared to conflict with the earlier three-Judge decision in M. Narsinga Rao (2001) on the proof needed when the complainant's primary evidence is unavailable. It referred the question to a Bench of appropriate strength, and the Chief Justice placed the batch of appeals and petitions before a Constitution Bench. The Bench answered the question and directed that the individual cases be listed before the appropriate Bench.

Questions before the Court

  1. In the absence of the complainant's direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, can the guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be inferred from other evidence led by the prosecution?
  2. Is there a conflict between B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy on the one hand and M. Narsinga Rao on the other?

What the Court held

  • Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, as a fact in issue, is a sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii). Mere acceptance or receipt of money without proof of the offer (for acceptance under Section 7) or the prior demand (for obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)) is not enough.
  • Demand and acceptance may be proved by direct oral or documentary evidence, or by circumstantial evidence. If the complainant turns hostile, dies or is unavailable, they may be proved through other witnesses, documents or circumstances; the trial does not abate and does not by itself end in acquittal.
  • A court may raise a presumption of fact about demand and acceptance only when the foundational facts are proved. This presumption is discretionary and rebuttable. The presumption under Section 20 is a mandatory presumption of law, arising once the facts in issue are proved, and applies to Section 7 but not to Section 13(1)(d).
  • The evidence of a witness treated as hostile is not wiped off the record. The creditworthy part may be acted upon, and a conviction can rest on it if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
  • There is no conflict between B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy and M. Narsinga Rao. The referred question was answered: guilt can be inferred from other evidence in the absence of the complainant's evidence.

Why it matters

The Constitution Bench settles how a bribery charge may be proved when the complainant does not give evidence. It holds that the earlier three-Judge decisions are not in conflict, sets out a summary of principles on proof of demand, acceptance and obtainment, distinguishes the discretionary presumption of fact from the mandatory presumption of law under Section 20, and explains the use of a hostile witness's evidence with reference to Section 154 of the Evidence Act.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under: In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
B.V. Nagarathna, J. (for the Court)Page 69 of the judgment
“In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, 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 by 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 accused public servant.”
B.V. Nagarathna, J. (for the Court)Page 68 of the judgment
“In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.”
B.V. Nagarathna, J. (for the Court)Page 67 of the judgment
“In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a “hostile witness” if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.”
B.V. Nagarathna, J. (for the Court)Page 65 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 (with connected matters)
Decided
15 December 2022
Bench
S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Constitution Bench by B.V. Nagarathna, J., signed by all five judges.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.