Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra
Background
The appellant, a Zilla Parishad employee handling pension and provident fund files, allegedly demanded a bribe from the brother of a retired employee to speed up the clearance of her pension and GPF dues. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's pocket after he accepted them. The trial court acquitted him, giving him the benefit of the doubt because the complainant partly turned hostile during cross-examination. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reversed the acquittal on the State's appeal and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. It held that the trial court had erred in granting the benefit of doubt by over-relying on one inconsistent line in a three-year-late cross-examination, while ignoring that the complainant's detailed examination-in-chief was independently corroborated by two panch witnesses and other documentary evidence (panchnamas, the complaint, and witness testimony). The Court reiterated that once recovery of tainted money is proved, Section 20 of the Act raises a statutory presumption of guilt that the accused must rebut, and that an appeal against acquittal can legitimately be allowed where the trial court's reasoning does not hold up, rather than it being untouchable merely because "two views were possible."
Lesson Learnt
A single contradictory answer, especially one appearing years after the main testimony, does not automatically wipe out an otherwise corroborated bribery case; once bribe money is recovered from the accused, the law presumes guilt unless the accused can disprove it.