Paritala Sudhakar vs. State Of Telangana

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 655
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6066/2024]
PARITALA SUDHAKAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.05.09
17:26:17 IST
Reason:
1

2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-convict
(hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the Final
Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’). The High Court
dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the Judgment dated
29.01.2008 of the learned Additional Special Judge for Special Police
Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at Hyderabad
1
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Calendar Case No.19 of
2004, whereby the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a further period of six months.
1
[Mis-spelt as ‘ Calender ’ in the Trial Court Judgment.]
2

FACTUAL POSITION:
3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as a
Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRO’) posted at Gundala Mandal,
Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh
between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant
submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming
compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO
forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting an
inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when the
complainant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PW1’) approached the
Appellant to discuss a matter regarding compensation for the damaged
trees, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand) to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report. It was further
alleged that on 07.08.2003, PW1 met the accused officer and requested
that he is not in a position to pay such huge amount, whereupon the
accused officer is said to have stated that unless the bribe amount of
Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) is paid to him, he would not come to
the village for inspection. It is alleged that the Appellant finally asked
3

PW1 to come with the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand) and meet him at his residence at Mothukur Village on
11.08.2003.
4. Aggrieved by these demands, PW1 filed a written complaint with
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW7’) on
08.08.2003. PW7 registered a case being Cr. No.19/ACB-HR/2003
against the Appellant under Section 7 of the Act, on 11.08.2003.
5. On 11.08.2003, in presence of independent mediators, PW1 and
others, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. The trap party then went
to the Appellant’s house. The house of the Appellant was found locked
and PW1 was informed by the Appellant’s neighbours that the Appellant
had gone to the MRO at Gundala. From the house, independent
witness-PW2 and PW1 went on scooter to the MRO, where PW7 and
the other trap members followed them in a jeep. PW1 met the Appellant
in the MRO. The Appellant informed that he would come over to Ambala
Village and meet him. PW1 and PW2 came out of the office and
informed PW7 that the Appellant would meet him at Ambala Village.
Again, PW1 and the trap party members went to Ambala Village and
waited there. Around 6 PM, the Appellant came on his motorcycle and
PW1 approached him, whereafter the Appellant and PW1 both went to
4

PW1’s house on their respective vehicles. Both vehicles were parked in
front of PW1’s house. The Appellant visited the garden/fields of PW1
and thereafter returned to PW1’s house.
6.The Appellant had tea and informed that he would conduct
‘ panchanama ’ in the presence of the mediators in the garden and asked
PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag attached to the petrol
tank of his motorcycle. Accordingly, PW1 kept the bribe amount in the
said bag. PW1 then signalled to the trap party indicating acceptance of
bribe by the Appellant. The trap party then approached the Appellant
and questioned him regarding the bribe amount. Tests were conducted
on the hands of the Appellant which proved negative. However, money
was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the
Appellant’s motorcycle.
7. On 29.01.2008, considering the evidence and after hearing
arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Act and also sentenced to undergo
5

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a further period for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
8. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s Judgment dated 29.01.2008, the
Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 before the High
Court and on 06.03.2024, the High Court delivered the Impugned
Judgment, whereby it dismissed the Criminal Appeal on the grounds
that the prosecution had successfully established the element of
demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:
9. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant contended that the triple
test for gauging trustworthiness of trap cases i.e., (i) Prior verification of
demand by investigator; (ii) use of shadow witness, and; (iii) successful
pH test are entirely absent, in the instant case.
10. Learned senior counsel contended that the entire factual matrix
surrounding the alleged bribe is extremely flawed. It was submitted that
the alleged demand was made during the late evening of 11.08.2003 at
PW1’s house where there were no independent witnesses. The demand
6

was also not heard by any of the trap team members who were present
at the scene of the incident. It was argued before us that the
complainant also failed to disclose the fact that he had previously
approached the MRO for grievance(s) regarding drought compensation,
and this had led to a prior altercation with the Appellant. This shows a
further insight into the entire (alleged) crime being a farce and a ploy to
take revenge from the Appellant, due to prior animus between the
Appellant and PW1.
11. It was argued that there is no verification of alleged demand or of
the genuineness of the grievance made before deciding to lay trap. It
was contended that the need for proper verification of demand and
allegation has been held to be a settled convention in trap cases as per
the recent judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mir Mustafa
Ali Hasmi v State of A. P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689 .
12. Reliance was further placed on Rajesh Gupta v State , 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1107 and K Shantamma v State of Telangana ,
(2022) 4 SCC 574 , wherein conviction was overturned due to the
prosecution’s failure to adequately prove demand by means of
evidence.
7

13. While referring to DW1’s (complainant’s wife) statements, it was
pointed out that her narration of the events that transpired completely
contradicted the one given by the complainant-PW1. In fact, the wife
had not supported the case of any demand being made at the time
when both parties were present in the house. It was, hence, urged that
the appeal be allowed, as there was no evidence worth the name
available against the Appellant.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to
Paragraph no.17 of the Trial Court Judgment and contended that
ordinarily, a demand for illegal gratification would not be made openly
by corrupt officials to avoid being reported and to safeguard their
reputation. Therefore, the absence of other direct witnesses to the
demand would not amount to controverting or denying the demand but
would only suggest that the same was not made in the presence of
other persons. In fact, PW2 had stated in his examination-in-chief that
the Appellant had asked the complainant about the bribe amount and
after nodding his head, the Appellant instructed the complainant to meet
him at the crossroads. It was submitted that as to the fact that PW2 was
not inside the room when the afore-noted conversation occurred, he
was just outside the door, showing that he was at a hearing distance.
8

15. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no motive for
complainant to falsely concoct a story against the Appellant and even if
the altercation between complainant and the Appellant is believed to
have taken place, it was an attempt by the Appellant to signal to the
complainant that his application for compensation would be rejected
unless he approves it. This was nothing more than a prelude to the
demand being made by the Appellant of illegal gratification and it only
strengthens the Respondent’s case. Furthermore, it was urged that the
presumption against the Appellant would be operative under Section 20
of the Act, as recovery was effected from the rexine bag attached to the
petrol tank of the Appellant’s motorbike.
16. Learned counsel contended that though it was brought to the
Court’s attention that the complainant had contradicted his statement
when he stated that the Appellant was not with him when he placed the
money in the pouch/bag, but the same is not true as the complainant
had corrected his statement(s) thereafter in the cross-examination. But,
even if it were to be believed that only the complainant was present at
the time the money was kept, as noted by the Trial Court, there is a
clear line of sight from inside the house towards where the Appellant’s
motorcycle was parked. Therefore, even in such scenario, it is clear that
the currency notes were placed in the Appellant’s bag with his
9

knowledge and upon his instructions, hence, establishing the
acceptance of illegal gratification. Even while referring to the statements
made by DW1, it was contended that the entire conversation relating to
the bribe amount happened while she was preparing tea for the parties,
so naturally, she could not have heard anything. It was urged that the
appeal deserved dismissal at the hands of this Court.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record,
it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the
witnesses. In this connection, it would not be out of place to take note of
the observations in Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh , (2017) 11 SCC
195 to the following effect:

10

18. In Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka , (2017) 13 SCC 98 , it
was observed as under:
‘ 26.  Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we
feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact
that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each
and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part
of the investigating agency and the evidence of the
witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for
conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is
that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
27.  Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the
evidence of witness is bound to happen because there
would be considerable gap between the date of incident
and the time of deposing evidence before the court, but if
these contradictions create such serious doubt in the mind
of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it
11

appears to the court that there is clear improvement, then it
is not safe to rely on such evidence.
28.  In the case on hand, the evidence of the eyewitnesses
is only consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the
deceased but on all other factors there are lot of
contradictions which go to the root of the matter.
xxx
32.  It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives
and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of
independent witnesses for the incident which took place on
a public road in the broad daylight. Although there is no
absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to
be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses,
it would be trite in law to have independent witnesses when
the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be
incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and
contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not
tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when
the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then
those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in
such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
33.  It is the duty of the Court to consider the
trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by
Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. In
the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these
witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and
improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible
conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be
a basis to convict the accused. ’
(emphasis supplied)
19. To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the
incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the
Appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the Appellant for
quarrelling with PW1. However, the High Court has disbelieved this
aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same. Further, PW1’s
12

version itself during his deposition before the Trial Court is self-
contradictory, inasmuch as initially he stated in his examination-in-chief
that both he and the accused officer came back to his house and were
drinking tea inside the house, when PW1 came out and kept the
amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s
bike. However, when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor
concerned, PW1 stated that the Appellant was with him when the
tainted currency was kept in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank.
Why this aspect is of significance is for the reason that if the Appellant
had come out of the house along with PW1 and in full view of the trap
party members who were just 20 yards away and could witness the
signal from PW1 of removing his spectacles and wiping it and then they
would, but naturally, also have seen that PW1 had directly kept the
bribe amount in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the
motorcycle of the Appellant. In this background, the statement of PW7
that when the Appellant was already on his motorcycle and was about
to start it, he was stopped and taken inside the house, where he was
made to dip his hand in the solution mixed with water, but his hands did
not change colour, is inexplicable for the reason that the trap party
members had already witnessed the complainant directly putting the
tainted notes, allegedly as demanded by the Appellant, in the rexine
bag. Thus, there was no occasion for the Appellant to be taken inside
13

the house to get his hands dipped in the solution, as the Appellant had
not touched the notes. Further, when the solution did not change colour,
PW7 states that he called the complainant to narrate what had
happened and then, upon coming to know that the money was kept
inside the rexine bag directly, the same was recovered and the number
of the notes matched with those which had been kept for the purposes
of the trap. The actual circumstances leading to the recovered notes
being kept by the complainant-PW1 directly in the rexine bag attached
to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant are not forthcoming.
To further confound the matter, DW1-wife of the complainant stated that
her husband/PW1 went outside the house and again came back inside
the house with the Appellant. Thereafter, DW1 states, after consuming
tea, both went outside. Subsequently, the trap party entered the house
along with PW1 and the Appellant. Thus, from all the official versions of
the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected
sequence of events by the prosecution-Respondent, of both (i) the
money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the
Appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in
the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence. The
same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in
our considered opinion. In Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of
Maharashtra , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038 , while allowing the appeals
14

preferred by the convicts therein, it was observed that when the Court is
to choose between the version proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the
defence version, in the face of reasonable doubt towards the
prosecution story, the Court should lean in the defence’s favour.
20. One further aspect which the Court would like to dwell on is that
as per the version of the witnesses themselves, at the very least, what
is common is that the Appellant had taken a round of the horticulture
garden of the complainant for preparing a report relating to the claim of
insurance/compensation for PW1’s trees which were destroyed due to
drought, whereafter the Appellant returned to the house and had tea.
The presence of DW1-wife of the complainant inside the house, who
prepared the tea, is undisputed. She has stated during deposition that
she was not aware of any demand by the Appellant of any money for
preparing any report. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts
and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and for reasons
stated above, we find that the guilt of the Appellant has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Having found so, this is a case where benefit
of doubt was required to be given to the Appellant.
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
15

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 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. Accordingly, for reasons afore-stated, the instant appeal is allowed.
The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside,
extending to him the benefit of doubt. The Judgments of the Courts
below are quashed.
23. As the Appellant was already granted exemption from
surrendering, no further orders are required to be passed in this regard.
If fine was deposited by the Appellant, let the same be refunded within
four weeks from date. No order as to costs.
16

24. I.A. No.91184/2024 is allowed – the Appellant is exempted from
filing a Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment.
…………………………………J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
…………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI
MAY 09, 2025
17