ACQUITTAL WARRANTED WHEN PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Rajinder Kumar (A1), a Junior Clerk at DESU, was accused of criminal conspiracy with A2 (a pan shop owner) to obtain illegal gratification from PW1 on 08.08.1994 for adjusting an electricity bill

PW1 lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, leading to the registration of RC No. 51(A)/94/CBI/ACB/N.D., FIR under Section 7 of the PC Act

The charge sheet was filed under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act

The trial court, vide judgment dated 21.10.2003, convicted A1 for these offenses, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines

A1 appealed, arguing that PW1 turned hostile, stating the bribe was demanded by one Raj Kumar, not A1.

The defense also highlighted prior enmity between PW6 and PW8, DESU officers, which corroborated A1's claim of false implication

The prosecution contended that despite PW1's hostility, other evidence proved demand and acceptance, and minor inconsistencies did not discredit the case

PW1 initially supported the prosecution during examination-in-chief but turned hostile during cross-examination more than two years later

PW1 alleged that PW6 orchestrated the complaint against A1, who was Raj Kumar's nephew, and that Raj Kumar had demanded the bribe, not A1

PW1 also stated that the CBI arrested A1, A2, and Raj Kumar, but released Raj Kumar after A1 and Raj Kumar were beaten

PW4 (recovery witness) identified PW1 handing money to A2, who then passed it to A1.

PW4 admitted that A1 protested his apprehension and denied taking the bribe

PW5 (shadow witness) corroborated PW1 handing money to A2, who then passed it to A1, but also admitted three persons were arrested and couldn't recall if the third was Raj Kumar.

He further deposed that PW1 had told him that the money was to be given to the pan vendor

PW6 (Recovery Officer), A1's superior, admitted strained relations with PW8 (Finance Officer)

PW8 confirmed strained relations with PW6 and stated that PW6 called him on the day of the trap, saying he had harmed PW8's sister's son (A1)

CW5, "Raj Kumar Pal, Junior Clerk cum Compotist, DESU," was listed as a witness but not examined by the prosecution

Whether the prosecution successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that Rajinder Kumar (A1) demanded and accepted illegal gratification, thereby attracting conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence, including the hostile testimony of PW1 and the inconsistencies presented by other prosecution witnesses, to warrant interference by this Court

The court primarily applied Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), for the appeal

It considered Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), which require proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction

The court also referred to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), concerning criminal conspiracy

On the evidentiary aspect, the court noted the principle from *Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)* (2023) 4 SCC 731, which mandates proof of offer by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant as a fact in issue

It also considered the dictum in *M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.*, (2001) 1 SCC 691, regarding the legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act where acceptance of gratification is proved, and how "proof" is defined in the Evidence Act, emphasizing that the condition does not necessarily require direct evidence

The court noted *Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab*, (2015) 3 SCC 220, affirming that hostile testimony does not necessitate total rejection, and credible parts can be relied upon

The court underscored that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt

The court found significant inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's case.

While acknowledging that hostile testimony (like PW1's) does not automatically invalidate a case, the court noted that PW1's shift from supporting the prosecution to becoming hostile after a two-year gap, combined with his assertion that "CBI is trying to get an innocent person convicted," raised serious concerns

PW1 specifically stated that the bribe was demanded by Raj Kumar, not A1, and that he handed the money to A2 at Raj Kumar's instance

This testimony was partially corroborated by the defense plea of false implication at the instance of PW6 due to enmity with PW8, A1's maternal uncle, which was "probabilised" by PW8's own testimony

The court also noted that PW5, a shadow witness, admitted to the arrest of a third person (potentially Raj Kumar, listed as CW5 in the charge sheet but not examined)

The prosecuting counsel's failure to clarify these aspects with the Investigating Officer, despite the defense raising reasonable doubts through prosecution witnesses, further weakened the prosecution's burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

The court distinguished the present case from *M. Narsinga Rao*, noting that here A1 protested his apprehension and claimed innocence, unlike the accused in *M. Narsinga Rao* who remained silent for four years

These combined factors led the court to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case against A1

The court held that the evidence on record raised "grave suspicion" but that "suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof"

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside

Rajinder Kumar (A1) was acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., and his bail bond was cancelled