In Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011 -SC- Prosecution can prove corruption case through other means even if complainant is dead or unavailable, rules Supreme Court
Justice Bela M. Trivedi & Justice Dipankar Datta [21-09-2023]

Read Order: P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through Lr Paka Saroja V. State of Andhra Pradesh

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 22, 2023: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a public servant for corruption despite the death of the complainant and the appellant/accused. The court observed that the prosecution can prove its case through other means, such as oral or documentary evidence, in the event of the complainant's death or unavailability.

The present appeal was filed against a judgment and order dated 21st March 2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In this judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, who was accused no. 1, and upheld the judgment and order dated 6th January 2005 passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had found the appellant/accused, P. Sarangapani (now deceased), guilty of offenses under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the appellant's death during the pendency of this appeal, his wife, was permitted to continue with the appeal.

The division bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the complainant, who was the crucial witness in this case, had passed away during the pendency of the appeal. However, the bench cited the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [LQ/SC/2022/1545], where it was established that if the complainant becomes hostile, passes away, or is unavailable to provide evidence during the trial, the prosecution can prove the demand for illegal gratification using other witnesses who can present evidence either orally or through documentary means. Additionally, the prosecution has the option to prove the case through circumstantial evidence. In such cases, the trial does not abate, and it does not lead to an automatic acquittal of the accused public servant.

The bench further explained that when it is proven that the accused has accepted an undue advantage, which includes any gratification other than legal remuneration, the court can raise a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This presumption indicates that the accused accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7 for improperly or dishonestly performing or causing the performance of a public duty. However, it was noted that this presumption is rebuttable.

The bench held that in the present case, both the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were sufficiently proven by the prosecution through the testimony of relevant witnesses who supported the prosecution's case. The lower courts had already established that the appellant/accused consciously accepted the tainted currency beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the burden shifted to the appellant/accused to disprove the statutory presumption under Section 20. However, the appellant failed to dispel this presumption and provide evidence that the money was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty.

Thus, the court concluded that both the lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence on record in the correct context and had rightfully found the appellant/accused guilty of the offenses under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the bench to interfere with the well-considered findings of the lower courts.