SC: Trial against public servant for corruption can not be abated if complainant dies or is unavailable

New Delhi [India], December 15 : The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that the trial does not abate and neither does it result in order of acquittal of the accused public servant if the complainant turns 'hostile' or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during proceedings.
"In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence," the top court ruled.

"The trial does not abate nor does it result in order of acquittal of the accused public servant," the Supreme Court said.
The landmark ruling came by the bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna.
In the verdict, the court also expressed its hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution will make sincere efforts to ensure that corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance become unpolluted and free from corruption.
The five-judge Constitution Bench was dealing with the question that in the absence of the complainant letting in direct evidence of demand owing to the non-availability of the complainant or owing to his death or other reason, whether the demand for illegal gratification could be established by other evidence.
"In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution," the court said.
The Bench further held that there is no conflict between the judgments of the three-judge bench. It clarified that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e), as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature
The court said, "We find that there is no conflict in the three-judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P Satyanarayana Murthy with the three-judge Bench decision in M Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or 'primary evidence' of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason."
"The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns 'hostile' is also
discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases," the SC said.
In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a
motive or reward as mentioned in the said section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law, the Bench said, adding that the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal.
Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act, the court observed.
The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof, the court observed.
It further noted that on the basis of the material on record, a court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not.
"Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands," the court said.
It directed that individual cases may be considered before the appropriate Bench after seeking orders of the Chief Justice of India.