State Of H.P. vs Narinder Singh

Scope of interference with an acquittal:

26.

At the outset, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When a court of competent jurisdiction acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is not weakened but reinforced. Where such acquittal is affirmed by the High Court, the caution to be exercised by this Court under Article 136 is even greater.

27.

In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048, this Court explained the golden thread running through criminal jurisprudence in the following words:

“25.

Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. The rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of the interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.”

28.

The decision in Kali Ram (supra) further cautions that wrongful acquittal and wrongful conviction do not stand on the same footing, for conviction of an innocent person causes grave injustice and shakes public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The rule of benefit of doubt, therefore, is not a technical rule; it is a substantive safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence.

29.

In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 60, this Court reiterated the limited scope of interference with acquittals. This Court observed:

“75.

The Trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence; therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court. An acquittal by the Trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.”

30.

The decision in Ghurey Lal (supra) also crystallised certain propositions: first, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of an acquitted accused; secondly, if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail; thirdly, though the appellate court has the power to reappreciate evidence, it should interfere only when the acquittal is manifestly illegal, perverse or results in miscarriage of justice; and fourthly, due weight must be given to the Trial Court's findings, particularly because the trial judge had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses.

31.

In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325, this Court held that though the appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate the evidence, the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an order of acquittal. It was held that when two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.

32.

The same principle was restated in Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479, wherein this Court held that an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.

33.

Therefore, the question before us is not whether another view on the evidence is possible. The question is whether the view taken by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal. Having examined the record, we are unable to hold so.

“7.

The essential ingredients of Section 7 are:

(i)

that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant;

(ii)

that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person.

8.

Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are:

(i)

that he should have been a public servant;

(ii)

that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such a public servant; and

(iii)

that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.

9.

In the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India 1997 (9) SCC 477, this Court had an occasion to consider the word "obtained" used in Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988), and it was held:

"12.

The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned. For such an offence, the prosecution has to prove that the accused "obtained" the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act as it is available only in respect of offences under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) -- and not under Section 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the Act. "Obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment, the initiative vests in the person who receives, and in that context, a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1) (d) of the Act, unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be established by proof of either "acceptance" or "obtainment."

10.

The legal position is no more res integra that the primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to be established.” (Emphasis supplied).

52.

It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, respectively, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.

53.

A five-Judge Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, categorically held that an offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. The relevant observations are reproduced herein below:

“88.4.

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i)

If there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant, and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii)

On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(iii)

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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively, of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver and is accepted by the public servant, which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied)

54.

It was further explained by this Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152, as follows:

“23.

The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in the absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” (Emphasis supplied)

55.

From the above exposition of law, it may be safely concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, respectively. Consequently, without evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 56. The present case is not one of an “offer to pay by the bribe-giver” where, in the absence of any demand from the public servant, the mere acceptance of illegal gratification would constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The expression “offer” indicates that there is a conveyance of an intention to give, which must be communicated and understood by the recipient, leading to the meeting of minds. Consequently, the offer is accepted. For such an acceptance to constitute an offence under Section 7, there must be clear and cogent evidence establishing that the public servant was aware of the offer and accepted it voluntarily, knowing it to be illegal gratification. In other words, even where there is no express demand, the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker must be shown to have been ad idem as regards the factum of the offer of a bribe.

“21.

As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and the complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:

‘22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not the case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])’ (emphasis supplied)”

“13…It is proved by this negative evidence that no such verification was made by the patwari. Hence, a form to obtain a subsidy for Rukmani could not have been and was not presented to the accused appellant. So no work was pending, and the demand of Rs. 100/- could not have been made by the accused appellant. When it is proved beyond doubt from the record that no such application form was submitted, it cannot be held that any work was pending with the accused and any demand could be made by him in relation to the sanction to be made with regard to the deepening of the well. P.W. 1 Radhey Shyam has himself admitted that he did not pay the money for the purpose. According to him, instead, the amount was paid to the accused appellant for the work which had already been done and for which there is no charge against the accused appellant.” (Emphasis supplied)

“12...The copy of the extract of the mutation register (Exh. 67) shows that the mutation has been effected in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 itself. The said mutation was made on 2-1-1986, and it is recorded that the concerned persons were intimated on 2-1-1986. It is further apparent from the said document that the mutation, which was effected in the names of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9), was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986. Both Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) as well as his brothers Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram (P.W. 7) are shown to be present at the time of verification and certification by the Revenue Inspector. It is recorded in the said register that the persons named Bhaiya (P.W. 9), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Shankar (P.W. 11) were present and, on verification of the will deed, they admitted that Bhagirathibai has died. On that, the mutation which was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused was certified on 31-1-1986. When the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused - appellant and it was duly certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 in the presence of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9), it becomes unbelievable and, in any case, highly doubtful that the accused demanded the sum of Rs. 200/- in the month of May, 1986. It will be further seen from the statement of P.W. 7 Dayaram Ingole that the agricultural field was partitioned amongst the brothers, namely, Dayaram (P.W. 7), Bhaiya (P.W. 9) and Shankar (P.W. 11) in the month of February 1986. It is thus clear that after the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and duly certified on 31-1-1986, the partition of agricultural land took place between the three brothers and thus it can be inferred that Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) had knowledge that the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and was duly certified on 31-1-1986 by the Revenue Inspector. The statement of these three brothers, namely, P.W. 7 Dayaram, P.W. 9 Bhaiya and P.W. 11 Shankar, to the contrary that they were not present on 31-1-1986 before the Revenue Inspector cannot be believed. This is further fortified from the fact that on 5-5-1986 one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9) has sold his share of agricultural land to Ishwar Raut by the registered sale-deed (Exh. 98). If the mutation had not been effected on 2-1-1986 and certified on 31-1-1986 and was not in the knowledge of these three brothers as alleged, Bhaiya could not have sold his share on 5-5-1986 much before the date of incident on 16-5-1986. From this evidence, it can be inferred that the prosecution's case that Rs. 200/- was demanded by the accused - appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification, as a motive or reward for effecting the entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. On the face of the facts that the mutation was already effected by the accused - appellant on 2-1-1986, which was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 and the post conduct of Shankar Ingole and his brothers of partition of their respective shares in the month of February, 1986 and the sale of share by one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9), the prosecution story about the demand of Rs. 200/- by the accused - appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers becomes highly improbable and can be said to be suffering from inherent improbabilities. There is no reason to doubt the correctness and genuineness of the entries recorded in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 and 31-1-1986 respectively….” (Emphasis supplied)

“36.

Therefore, on going through the entire evidence brought on record and more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman, complainant, it is clear that the complainant and his two sons were released on bail at the police station and on the next day their bail was accepted in Chapter Case in Tahsil Office at Beed. This fact is also corroborated by P.W.2 Vasant, who has proved Exh. 19/1 to 19/7. These documents would show that in Chapter Case No. 1/91, the complainant and his sons were released on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 500/- on 2.1.1991 and in Chapter Case No. 3/91, they were released on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 2000/- on 4.1.1991 by accepting surety. Therefore, P.W.1 himself has stated that they were released on bail six days prior to the date of the trap. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that the amount of Rs. 300/- was received by the accused/appellant from Laxman Arey P.W.1 as gratification as a motive or reward for releasing him on bail, has not been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“10.

When the accused has already passed an order to issue a licence and sent the file to A.4 clerk even on 24.8.1998, nothing remains to be done by the accused thereafter. It is the duty of A.4 Clerk to wait for three days or one week; whether the applicant (P. W.2) comes and gets the licence or otherwise, A.4 Clerk should have sent the licence to the applicant by post. P. W.1 Collector himself has admitted as follows: -... (vernacular matter omitted).

11.

Therefore, the payment of a bribe after completion of the official favour is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U. P. Vs. Jagdish Singh Malhotra, 2003 SCC(Cri) 1008. In the present case, on the facts, there is no official favour persisted at all when already the appellant has ordered for the issue of a licence.

12.

In Ram Smugh Mourya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 2 CurCriR 169, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as follows:-

"17.

In the present case, the purpose for which the money was demanded as illegal gratification by the appellant was already served much prior to the alleged demand of Rs. 100/- to the appellant for releasing the complainant and his son Mohan. Complainant Rajaram was also given notice for appearance before the Court for filing the charge sheet. In the circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the appellant was demanding money for the work which had already been done. If the money was not paid by the complainant, after his release on surety, Deokaran (PW.5) was never called and asked for the payment of money because, as per the prosecution case, on his assurance, the complainant Rajaram and his son were released on bail. This fact is also tilting the balance of innocence in favour of the appellant. "

13.

In S. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 CrLJ 2377, the Karnataka High Court has held as follows:-

6……Unless there is corroboration by other materials, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance. Moreover, another hole in the jacket of the prosecution is that the file was left on 22.7.1986 itself with P. W2 to conduct the survey. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, naturally, the doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution's story. Hence, the benefit of the doubt is extended to the appellant"

"Like every other criminal case, a case of bribery is subject to the rule that the accused is presumed innocent and that the burden to discharge the said innocence is paramountly on the prosecution. However strong the suspicion against the accused, if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to an acquittal. If, therefore, the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace the presence of innocence wholly, the charge cannot be said to have been established".

“13.

According to the case of PW 1, on 23-3-2000, he visited the appellant's office to request her to issue a final assessment order. According to his case, at that time, initially, the appellant reiterated her demand of Rs. 3000. But she scaled it down to Rs. 2000. Admittedly, on 15-3-2000, the said Society was served with a notice informing the said Society that an exemption had been granted from payment of commercial tax to the said Society. Therefore, the said Society was not liable to pay any tax for the year 1996-1997. The issue of the final assessment order was only a procedural formality. Therefore, the prosecution's case about the demand for a bribe made on 23-3-2000 by the appellant appears to be highly doubtful.”

“25.

It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there was not even a whisper of there being any demand for a bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5: 30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself, as per the deposition of its witnesses, makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of a bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain, beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery, has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components- payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will revert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under a specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled-for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:

‘21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and the complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:

‘22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not the case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576 : (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 : (2006) 1 Scale 116])’ (emphasis supplied) (emphasis in bold is original, underlining is ours)