Supreme Court overturns conviction in bribery case due to evidentiary contradictions: Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 655
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Did the prosecution adequately prove that a public servant demanded and accepted a bribe? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent appeal, focusing on inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the overall reliability of the evidence presented. The case revolves around allegations of bribery against Paritala Sudhakar, a Revenue Inspector in Telangana. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered the judgment, overturning the conviction and granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.

Case Background:

Paritala Sudhakar, the Appellant, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Mandal Revenue Office (MRO) at Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, between October 12, 2001, and August 20, 2003. On August 6, 2003, the complainant (PW1) applied to the MRO for compensation for trees that had dried up due to drought. The MRO forwarded the application to the Appellant for inquiry. Later that day, PW1 alleged that the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report.

On August 7, 2003, PW1 claimed he told the Appellant he couldn’t pay the amount, but the Appellant insisted he would not come to the village for inspection unless the bribe was paid. The Appellant allegedly told PW1 to bring the bribe to his residence at Mothukur Village on August 11, 2003.

Aggrieved, PW1 filed a written complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range (PW7), on August 8, 2003. PW7 registered a case against the Appellant on August 11, 2003, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On August 11, 2003, pre-trap proceedings were conducted with independent mediators. The trap party went to the Appellant’s house but found it locked. Neighbors informed PW1 that the Appellant had gone to the MRO at Gundala. PW1 and an independent witness (PW2) went to the MRO, followed by PW7 and other trap members. The Appellant told PW1 he would meet him at Ambala Village.

PW1 and the trap party went to Ambala Village. Around 6 PM, the Appellant arrived on his motorcycle, and both went to PW1’s house. The Appellant visited PW1’s garden/fields and then returned to the house. After tea, the Appellant allegedly asked PW1 to put the bribe in a rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of his motorcycle. PW1 did so and signaled to the trap party.

The trap party questioned the Appellant, and tests on his hands were negative. However, the money was recovered from the rexine bag on his motorcycle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, convicted the Appellant on January 29, 2008, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on March 6, 2024, affirming the Trial Court’s decision that the prosecution had established the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Framework:

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with offences related to public servants being bribed.
• Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section discusses the presumption where undue advantage is taken for offences under Section 7.

Arguments:

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The triple test for trustworthiness in trap cases was not met:
  • Prior verification of demand by the investigator.
  • Use of a shadow witness.
  • Successful pH test.
• The factual matrix surrounding the alleged bribe is flawed:
  • The alleged demand was made without independent witnesses present.
  • Trap team members did not hear the demand.
  • The complainant failed to disclose a prior altercation with the Appellant, suggesting a motive for revenge.
• There was no verification of the alleged demand or the genuineness of the grievance before laying the trap, citing Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v State of A. P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689, Supreme Court.
• Reliance was placed on Rajesh Gupta v State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107, Supreme Court and K Shantamma v State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, Supreme Court, where convictions were overturned due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately prove demand.
• The complainant’s wife (DW1) contradicted the complainant’s version, not supporting the claim of any demand being made.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• Demand for illegal gratification is usually made discreetly, so the absence of direct witnesses does not negate the demand.
• PW2 stated that the Appellant inquired about the bribe amount and instructed the complainant to meet him at the crossroads.
• The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the Appellant, and any prior altercation only strengthens the case by showing the Appellant signaled that the compensation application would be rejected without the bribe.
• The presumption against the Appellant under Section 20 of the Act is operative because the money was recovered from the rexine bag on the Appellant’s motorbike.
• Any contradictions in the complainant’s statements were corrected during cross-examination. Even if only the complainant was present when the money was placed, there was a clear line of sight from inside the house to the motorcycle, establishing acceptance of illegal gratification.
• DW1 could not have heard the conversation about the bribe because she was preparing tea.

Arguments Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities:

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195, Supreme Court: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of considering the trustworthiness of evidence and not giving undue emphasis to minor discrepancies.
• Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, Supreme Court: The Court cited this case to highlight that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence of witnesses must be trustworthy.
• Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038, Supreme Court: The Court used this case to support the principle that when choosing between the prosecution and defense versions, the Court should lean in favor of the defense in the face of reasonable doubt.
• Om Parkash v State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250, Supreme Court: The Court cited this case to emphasize that where demand has not been proved, Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction of the Appellant was primarily influenced by material contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe. Several factors contributed to this conclusion:

• Inconsistent Testimony: The complainant’s (PW1) testimony was self-contradictory, raising doubts about the sequence of events and the circumstances under which the bribe money was placed in the Appellant’s motorcycle bag.
• Lack of Corroboration: The complainant’s wife (DW1) testified that she was unaware of any demand for money, which further undermined the prosecution’s case.
• Element of Animus: The Court acknowledged that there was an element of animosity between the Appellant and the complainant, suggesting a possible motive for false implication.
• Failure to Meet Evidentiary Standards: The prosecution failed to meet the required evidentiary standards to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion with the various points emphasised in the reasoning portion.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was fraught with inconsistencies and failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. “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.” The benefit of doubt was extended to the Appellant, and the conviction was set aside.

The Court also addressed the State’s submission regarding the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, stating that since the factum of demand was not proved, the presumption would not apply against the Appellant. “Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application.”

The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the prosecution’s version is credible and consistent, and that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. “In Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra…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.”

Key Takeaways:

• In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of corroborating evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused when there is reasonable doubt about their guilt.
• The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply if the demand for a bribe is not proved.

Directions:

The Court directed that if the Appellant had deposited any fine, it should be refunded within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. It clarifies that inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of corroborating evidence, and any element of animosity between the accused and the complainant can create reasonable doubt, warranting the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused. The judgment also reiterates that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply if the demand for a bribe is not proved.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Paritala Sudhakar, granting him the benefit of doubt due to material contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of corroborating evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case.