Supreme Court overturns conviction in bribery case: N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021)

Date of the Judgment: February 03, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 51

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal simply because it disagrees with the trial court’s assessment of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Sanitary Inspector accused of bribery. The court emphasized that a High Court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a ‘possible view’ based on the evidence. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The appellant, N. Vijayakumar, was working as a Sanitary Inspector in the 8th Ward of the Madurai Municipal Corporation. He was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹500 and a cell phone from Thiru. D. Gopal (PW-2), a supervisor at Neat And Clean Service Squad (NACSS), a contractor for sanitation work in the ward. The prosecution alleged that on October 9th and 10th, 2003, Vijayakumar demanded the bribe to send a report for the extension of NACSS’s contract beyond March 2003. A trap was laid, and Vijayakumar was allegedly caught accepting the bribe on October 10, 2003. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting him under Sections 7, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases acquitted the appellant on February 25, 2014. The State appealed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which reversed the acquittal on August 28, 2020, convicting the appellant under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, on September 22, 2020, the High Court also convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The High Court imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5000 on September 15, 2020, for the first conviction, and an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 7 on September 29, 2020. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the following sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

• Section 7: This section deals with the offense of a public servant taking gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act. It states that:
  
  “Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 13(1)(d): This section defines criminal misconduct by a public servant, stating:
  
  “A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
  (d) if he, –
  (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
  (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;”
• Section 13(2): This section provides the punishment for criminal misconduct:
  
  “Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The trial court’s acquittal was based on a “possible view” of the evidence, and the High Court should not have reversed it without finding that the trial court’s view was impossible. The appellant cited Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383 to support this argument.
• The High Court failed to recognize material contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5).
• The High Court initially convicted the appellant only under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and later, on its own, added the conviction under Section 7, which is not permissible under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The judgment was reserved on December 17, 2019, and pronounced on August 28, 2020, which is beyond the six-month period guideline set in Anil Rai etc. v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-11 clearly established that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹500 and a mobile phone on October 10, 2003.
• The trial court’s acquittal was not based on a “possible view,” and the High Court was correct in reversing it.
• The appellant only challenged the judgment dated September 22, 2020, and the order imposing sentence on September 29, 2020, and not the earlier conviction.

Sub-Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s order of acquittal, particularly when the trial court’s view was a “possible view” based on the evidence on record?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal:

• Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, Supreme Court of India: The Court laid down general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
• Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383, Supreme Court of India: This case explained the concept of “possible view” and held that the High Court should not reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a “possible view”.
• Hakeem Khan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 5 SCC 719, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that if the “possible view” of the trial court is not agreeable to the High Court, the High Court cannot interdict such a view.

On the requirement of proof of demand for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act:

• C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779, Supreme Court of India: This case held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without proof of demand.
• B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the need for proof of demand for illegal gratification and held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can only be drawn after the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Deals with taking gratification by a public servant other than legal remuneration.
• Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Defines criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Provides the punishment for criminal misconduct.
• Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Deals with the court’s power to alter or review a judgment.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, in reiterating the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
• The Supreme Court relied on Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383, emphasizing that the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal as the trial court’s view was a “possible view”.
• The Supreme Court followed Hakeem Khan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 5 SCC 719, in holding that the High Court cannot interdict the “possible view” of the trial court.
• The Supreme Court relied on C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779, and B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, to reiterate that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient for conviction without proof of demand for illegal gratification.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Material Contradictions: The Court noted significant contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5), which cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Proof of Demand: The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded illegal gratification. Mere recovery of the tainted money and cell phone was not sufficient for conviction.
• “Possible View” Doctrine: The Court reiterated that the High Court should not have reversed the trial court’s acquittal, as the trial court’s view was a “possible view” based on the evidence. The High Court did not record any finding that the view taken by the trial court was not a “possible view”.
• Delay in Phenolphthalein Test: The Court questioned the unexplained delay of over an hour between the alleged acceptance of the bribe and the phenolphthalein test.
• Animosity of PW-2: The court noted that PW-2 admitted to having ill feelings towards the appellant.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that if a trial court’s acquittal is a “possible view” based on the evidence, the appellate court should not reverse it, even if another view is also possible. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was weakened by material contradictions in witness testimonies, the lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification, and the unexplained delay in conducting the phenolphthalein test. The Court also noted that the initial presumption of innocence is doubled when the trial court acquits the accused.

“It is fairly well settled that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.”

“In view of the material contradictions as noticed above in the deposition of key witnesses, the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused-appellant.”

“So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court.”

The Court did not address the procedural irregularities pointed out by the appellant, as the case was decided on merits.

Key Takeaways

• Proof of Demand is Crucial: In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient for conviction.
• “Possible View” Doctrine: An appellate court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s view is a “possible view” based on the evidence. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of the trial court’s assessment of evidence.
• Limitations on Appellate Courts: Appellate courts should be cautious in reversing acquittals and should only do so when the trial court’s view is not a “possible view.”
• Importance of Witness Credibility: Material contradictions in witness testimonies can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Presumption of Innocence: The initial presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence is doubled when the trial court acquits the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith from custody, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s view is a “possible view” based on the evidence. The prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction. This judgment reinforces the principles set in previous cases like Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383 and Hakeem Khan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 5 SCC 719.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not introduce a new position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles regarding the powers of appellate courts in cases of acquittal and the need for proof of demand in corruption cases. It reaffirms that the “possible view” of the trial court should not be interfered with by the High Court unless it is not a “possible view”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s conviction and restoring the trial court’s acquittal of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s acquittal was a “possible view” based on the evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principles that an appellate court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s view is a “possible view” and that the prosecution must prove demand for illegal gratification in corruption cases.