When the Bribe Complainant Turns Hostile: Proving Demand Through Other Evidence

A corruption prosecution does not automatically fail because the complainant dies, becomes unavailable or does not support the prosecution. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta held that demand and acceptance may be proved through other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence.

What remains essential

The prosecution must still establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court cannot presume demand merely from hostility or currency recovery. It must identify evidence supporting the request for undue advantage and its acceptance or obtaining.

Possible evidence

Verification witnesses, shadow witnesses, recorded communications, contemporaneous messages, conduct, recovery circumstances and admissions may contribute. Electronic material requires proof of authenticity and compliance with the applicable evidence statute.

Inference and presumption

A factual inference from circumstances is different from the statutory presumption under Section 20. The court first determines whether foundational facts have been proved. Only then does the statutory presumption operate within its scope, subject to rebuttal.

Careful adjudication

Hostility may arise from fear, compromise, faulty memory or an untrue original allegation. Courts should assess the usable parts of testimony with the full record rather than treating a witness as wholly erased or automatically reliable.

Sources

Supreme Court of India, Neeraj Dutta v. State, Constitution Bench judgment: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/4488/4488_2009_3_1501_40627_Judgement_15-Dec-2022.pdf

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1558/1/aA1988-49.pdf

#CorruptionLaw #WitnessEvidence #SupremeCourt