Supreme Court Restores Corruption Conviction Holding Demand Can Be Proved Despite Hostile Witness if Credible Evidence Exists

Held: The Supreme Court held that proof of demand in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be established even when the complainant turns hostile, provided the credible and corroborated portions of evidence establish such demand. The Court clarified that testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in entirety and courts must assess which parts remain trustworthy, and if demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction can be sustained.

Summary: The case arose from a trap proceeding where a Taluk Supply Officer was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹500 for countersigning official records of a ration dealer. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted him on the ground that demand was not proved, particularly due to inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and non-examination of one independent witness. Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that demand and acceptance were sufficiently proved through the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by an independent witness and the trap officer, while the accused relied on precedents requiring strict proof of demand. The Court examined the deposition of the complainant, noting inconsistencies but also identifying portions where the demand was affirmed, including the complaint made before vigilance authorities and corroborated by witnesses. It applied principles laid down in Neeraj Dutta and Sat Paul, holding that evidence of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it is credible. The Court also noted that acceptance of the bribe was admitted and proved through trap proceedings, and the accused’s explanation was inconsistent and false, further supporting the prosecution case.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, and upheld the statutory minimum punishment, with all pending applications disposed of.