Use of Circumstantial Evidence for Conviction in Corruption Cases

 FACT 

In 2000, a public officer Ms. Neeraj Dutta took a bribe of ₹10000 from Mr. Rajvit Singh Sethi. Mr. Sethi made a complaint against Ms. Neeraj Dutta under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Act. The act punishes public officials for receiving ‘illegal gratification’ as a reward for performing an official act. However, Mr. Sethi passed away before the trial began.

The Trial Court found Ms. Neeraj Dutta guilty and sentenced her to three years imprisonment. In 2007 she filed an appeal at the Delhi High Court and the HC confirmed her conviction in 2009. She filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred the case to a Constitution Bench on February 28th, 2019. Since Mr. Sethi passed away, the Court noted there is a lack of direct evidence (such as his oral testimony) to rely on in the case. The Constitution Bench has to decide can a public official be convicted based on circumstantial evidence, such as forensic findings.

 WHAT DID THE COURT SAY? 

The Constitution Bench ruled that a public servant can be held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence. The Court said that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence.

Even 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 Act based on other evidence given by the prosecution," the Court held. However, the Court clarified this is applicable only in cases only when foundational facts have been proved.

The Court further said that in order to prove the demand and acceptance the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

• If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the public servant accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act;

• If a demand is made by public servants and the bribe giver accepts gives the demanded gratification, which is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment;

• In both cases, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as “a fact in issue.”

• The Court noted that mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii).