Supreme Court Constitution Bench Clarifies Proof Standards in Corruption Cases: Demand of Illegal Gratification Can Be Established Without Complainant’s Direct Evidence

Bench Rules Inferential Deduction of Guilt Permissible Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Even When Complainant Is Unavailable or Hostile

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 15, 2022, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical legal issue concerning the proof of corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, clarified that in cases where the complainant—the person allegedly paying the bribe—is unavailable to provide direct evidence due to death, hostility, or other reasons, the prosecution can still establish the guilt of a public servant through inferential and circumstantial evidence.

This judgment arose from a reference made by an earlier three-judge bench due to conflicting precedents on whether the absence of direct evidence from the complainant precludes conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Earlier decisions had diverged, with some acquitting accused public servants when the complainant turned hostile or died, while others upheld convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench methodically analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that the essential elements to be proved for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) are: (i) demand of illegal gratification by the public servant, and (ii) acceptance or obtainment of such gratification. Mere possession or recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.

The Court explained the critical distinction between “acceptance” (Section 7) and “obtainment” (Section 13(1)(d)) of gratification. In acceptance cases, the bribe giver offers gratification voluntarily and the public servant accepts it without prior demand. In obtainment cases, the public servant makes a prior demand which the bribe giver accepts and satisfies. Both demand and acceptance/obtainment must be proven as facts in issue.

While direct evidence, such as testimony from the complainant, is the most straightforward method to prove these facts, the Court held that in its absence, other evidence including the testimony of “shadow witnesses” or independent third parties, documentary evidence, and circumstantial evidence may be relied upon. The prosecution must establish a complete and cogent chain of circumstances excluding any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.

The Court clarified the role of presumptions under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates a legal presumption that gratification accepted by a public servant is as a motive or reward for an official act, provided demand and acceptance are established. This presumption applies only to offences under Section 7 and not under Section 13(1)(d). The Court distinguished between “legal presumptions” that courts must raise and “factual presumptions” or inferences that courts may draw based on evidence.

Regarding witnesses turning hostile, the Court underscored that such testimony is not to be discarded wholesale. Parts of hostile witnesses’ evidence that support the prosecution may be relied upon with caution and corroboration. The Court stressed the importance of the quality of evidence rather than rigid formalities, encouraging courts to examine the totality of evidence in corruption trials.

Ultimately, the Constitution Bench answered the referred question by holding that it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution, even in the absence of the complainant’s direct or primary evidence.

The Court expressed hope that complainants and prosecution agencies will diligently pursue corruption cases to ensure that corrupt public servants are brought to justice, thereby promoting integrity in public administration.

This judgment harmonizes earlier conflicting precedents and provides crucial guidance for trial courts and investigating agencies in corruption cases where direct evidence from complainants is unavailable or unreliable.

Statutory provisions

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i), 13(1)(d)(ii), 13(2), 20; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 4, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 154; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2085838