Case Name: Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6066/2024]
Date of Judgment: 9 May 2025
Quorum: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 06.08.2003, the complainant asked for compensation of trees damaged by drought, which was referred to the Appellant for inquiry. The Appellant, being a Revenue Inspector at Mandal Revenue Office (MRO), Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda, demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for carrying out the inquiry. Even after the complainant was unable to pay, the Appellant demanded the bribe and requested a meeting on 11.08.2003. This resulted in the filing of a case on 11.08.2003. During the pre-trap proceedings, the bribe money was kept in a bag fixed to the Appellant’s motorcycle in the Ambala Village.The trap team moved, and recovered the money from the motorcycle, proving the bribe.The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for a term of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and undergo simple imprisonment for a further period for six months for the offence under the under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 06.03.2024, affirming the conviction.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was tenable in law?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and, 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The Appellant, in senior counsel, submitted that prosecution had not met the prescribed “triple test” for cases of traps, i.e., pre-verification of the demand, employment of a shadow witness, and a pH test being successful. It was alleged that the demand for bribe was made late in the evening at the complainant’s residence in the absence of any independent witness, and no one from the trap team heard the demand. The Appellant further asserted that the complainant had prior grievances with him regarding drought compensation, which led to earlier disputes and indicates a motive for falsely implicating him. The defense emphasized that the demand was neither verified nor the genuineness of the grievance confirmed before initiating the trap, contrary to norms established in recent precedents, particularly *Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P.* (2024) and also relied on *Rajesh Gupta v. State*(2022) and *K. Shantamma v. State of Telangana*(2022), wherein similar convictions were overturned due to failure to prove demand. Also, complainant’s wife’s testimony was referred to as contradicting the testimony of complainant and not corroborating the demand allegation. Relying on these contradictions and unworthy evidence, reversal of the conviction was requested by the Appellant.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Respondent contended that the lack of direct witnesses to the bribe demand did not exclude its occurrence, since it is usually done in a low-profile manner to protect against exposure.PW2 testified that the Appellant mentioned the bribe and told the complainant where to meet.Even though PW2 was not within the room, he was close enough to overhear the discussion.The Respondent also contended that the complainant had nothing to gain from falsely accusing the Appellant and that even assuming there was prior animosity, it only enhanced the Appellant’s motive to take advantage of the situation to extort a bribe.Applying Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution insisted that the recovery of tainted money in the Appellant’s motorcycle bag justified the statutory presumption of guilt.Discrepancies in the complainant’s statement were addressed and corrected during cross-examination, and the Trial Court had rightly found that the placement of the money occurred under the Appellant’s instruction. The Respondent also refuted complainant’s wife’s claim of not witnessing the conversation, explaining that she was occupied in the kitchen at the relevant time. Hence, the Respondent urged for the appeal to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
After a close reading of the evidence on record, Trial Court and High Court judgments, and the arguments of both parties, the Supreme Court observed that there were material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.Referring to precedents such as *Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh*(2017) and *Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka*The Court again held that small inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses cannot be avoided, but contradictions touching the heart of the case can prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Key inconsistencies were observed in complainant’s deposition, where his statements in examination-in-chief and re-examination differed on material facts, like the bribe money’s placement and the Appellant’s presence during the act. Moreover, the trap party’s actions—especially in asking the Appellant to put his hands in phenolphthalein solution where there had been no contact with the contaminated money—did not follow normal procedure, which again questioned the chain of events.The wife’s testimony, which contradicted major parts of the prosecution account, and her presence at the house, along with her refusal to admit having seen any request for money, weighted further in favour of the defence. The Court also found that the purported recovery of the bribe money from the motorcycle bag lacked convincing corroboration and failed to conclusively prove the Appellant’s knowledge or control over the tainted money. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.Given the animosity between the complainant and the Appellant, the Court was inclined to accept the possibility of false implication.Referring to *Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra*(2023), the Court observed that in cases where two versions are placed and the prosecution version is suspect, the accused must benefit.Lastly, the Court ruled that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be invoked where the underlying fact of demand is proved.To the extent that the demand was not proved conclusively, the presumption did not apply, as interpreted in *Om Parkash v. State of Haryana*(2006).
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CONCLUSION
In view of the grave inconsistencies and contradictions in the case for the prosecution, absence of convincing evidence establishing the fundamental ingredient of demand, and also the non-existence of credible corroboration of recovery, the Supreme Court held that the Appellant’s guilt had not been made out beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, granting the benefit of doubt to the Appellant, the Court granted leave to appeal, overturned the conviction and sentence delivered by the courts below and quashed the challenged judgments. Any fine paid by the Appellant was ordered to be refunded within a period of four weeks. There was no order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ADI MEHTA
