Hostile Testimony of Complainant and Shadow Witness Vitiates Conviction if Alleged Bribery is Not Independently Established

The appellant, an Upper Division Clerk at the MCD, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹5,000 from the complainant (PW2) on December 6, 2000, in exchange for a mutation order regarding property No. 3314.

A trap was organized by the Anti-Corruption Branch involving a shadow witness (PW4) and a Trap Laying Officer (PW6).

The Trial Court convicted the appellant on May 20, 2005, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, sentencing him to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this in the High Court, arguing that the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile and the demand/acceptance was never proved.

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment regarding the proof of demand, acceptance, or recovery of the bribe amount.

2. Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) when material witnesses turn hostile.

Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) and Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the PC Act, 1988.

The evidentiary value of the Trap Laying Officer's testimony as discussed in State of U.P. v. Zakaullah and DK Sharma v. State of Delhi, which suggest that while a conviction can sometimes rest on a TLO's testimony, such evidence must be direct and reliable rather than hearsay.

The High Court found that the prosecution's case rested on shaky foundations because both the complainant (PW2) and the shadow witness (PW4) turned hostile.

PW2 testified that the appellant refused the cash and asked for a cheque, while PW4 claimed the money fell on the ground during a scuffle and was not accepted.

The Court determined his testimony was hearsay because he did not personally witness the exchange; he only acted on a signal from PW4, who subsequently denied the prosecution’s version in court.

Furthermore, the TLO's claim that the accused "confessed and sought pardon" at the scene was not recorded in the contemporaneous raid report (Ext. PW2/K), rendering his oral testimony unreliable.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and ordered to be set at liberty.