Statement Of Accused Explaining Incriminating Circumstances Should Be Considered Before Convicting: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the statement of the accused explaining the incriminating circumstances is to be considered before recording conviction, while posthumously acquitting a man convicted for taking a bribe.

The Court also held that to make out an offence of bribery, there has to be cogent proof of demand.

The Court was considering an Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala whereby conviction of her husband under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was upheld.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, "....if the complainant had offered to the accused only the lawful fee payable for processing the passport, no offence was committed. To make out an offence there had to be cogent proof of demand. In the instant case, the complainant has not supported demand and insofar as receipt of extra Rs.200 is concerned, there was no reliable evidence. Further, there was defense of the accused that he was not aware about those extra Rs.200. Therefore, in our view, this was a fit case where benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Adolf Mathew, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur.

Facts of the Case

The Prosecution's case was that the Accused was functioning as a Lower Division Clerk in the Passport Office. The Original Complainant required a passport urgently. In that context, he contacted the accused who required him to bring ₹1,000/- towards passport fee and other necessary documents. Over and above the lawful amount of ₹1000, the accused demanded ₹500 for processing the application expeditiously. On the Original Complainant's expression of his inability to pay gratification amount of ₹500, the Accused told the Original Complainant that initially he may pay ₹200/- and the balance may be paid after getting the passport. As per instructions, the amount of Rs.1200 (i.e., ₹1000 towards Passport fee plus ₹200 towards gratification) along with the Application Form and documents were to be delivered at the residence of the accused. In the meantime, the Complainant made a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation which, after registering the complaint, laid a trap. In furtherance thereof, at the residence of the Accused, treated currency notes amounting to ₹1200 were handed over to the Accused and soon thereafter, he was apprehended, and his hand wash was collected.

During trial, the original complainant did not support the prosecution case as regards the demand of bribe. The Trial Court, however, convicted the Accused upon finding that lodging of complaint and delivery of tainted money was duly proved by the prosecution. Aggrieved by his conviction, the Accused filed an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order.

The defence taken by the Accused was that the Accused was unaware that the amount being given to him was more than the amount required to be deposited towards passport fee. His Counsel argued that argued that once the demand is not proved, and ₹1000 was in any case to be paid towards passport fee, the recovery of that amount by itself would not be incriminatory.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that demand can be proved by circumstances even if the original complainant does not in so many words supports the prosecution case during trial.

It took note of the statement of the Original Complainant, wherein he stated that he was misled by one person, who was employed in the CBI, that the accused was a corrupt person and even though several attempts were made by the CBI to trap him, they were not successful.

"....In such circumstances, when the complainant had not supported the prosecution case during trial regarding demand of bribe money, the trial court and the appellate court were required to meticulously consider, particularly in the context of defense taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CRPC, whether the accused at the time of accepting the money was aware that it was in excess of the lawful fee payable for the passport. Importantly, other than PW1, who was not wholly reliable, prosecution brought no evidence that when the money was accepted by the accused, he had counted the money or that the money was counted in front of the accused before handing it over to him", the Court observed.

Stressing that it was obligatory upon the Court to consider the defense of the accused seriously, the Court further observed, "It is well settled that statement of the accused explaining the incriminating circumstances is to be considered before recording conviction and where the explanation is plausible and appropriately explains the incriminating circumstances, it may be accepted. In the present case, we find that the complainant himself had approached the accused for seeking his help for a passport. Admittedly, out of Rs.1200 paid, Rs.1000 were towards passport fee and, therefore, was not bribe money. Demand for the bribe is not supported during trial. In such circumstances, the defense of the accused that he agreed to help the complainant because he was introduced by an advocate, and that he was not aware that Rs.200 has been added to Rs.1000, which was the lawful amount payable towards passport fee, ought not to have been brushed aside."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Mini vs. CBI/ SPE Cochin [Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 980]

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Adolf Mathew, Advocate-on-Record Sanjay Jain

Respondent- Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, Advocate-on-Record Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate Vimla Sinha, Advocate Gautam Bharadwaj, Advocate Ishaan Sharma, Advocate Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Advocate Manasi Sridhar, Advocate-on-Record Arvind Kumar Sharma,

Click here to read/ download Order