Case Briefing: Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Case Title and Citation
NEERAJ DUTTA vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2009 (and connected cases).
Factual Background
The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench (five judges) by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict in prior decisions concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act). The conflict arose from a previous holding in P. Satyanarayana Murthy that inferential deductions to sustain a conviction were impermissible when the primary evidence of the complainant (who had died) was absent. However, other judgments had sustained convictions relying on other evidence and statutory presumptions, despite the absence of the complainant’s primary evidence. The moot question was how to establish the demand for illegal gratification, which is a sine qua non (an indispensable essentiality) for establishing an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the complainant is unavailable due to death, turning “hostile,” or other reasons.
Issue(s)
The core question of law framed for determination by the larger bench was:
“The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Constitution Bench answered the question in the affirmative:
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 adduced by the prosecution..
Reason for the Decision
- Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more is insufficient.
- Modes of Proof: The fact in issue (proof of demand and acceptance) can be proved by direct evidence (oral or documentary) or by circumstantial evidence.
- Circumstantial Evidence: The presumption of fact regarding demand and acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence. Circumstantial evidence must be proved by direct evidence of the circumstances.
- Complainant Unavailable: If the complainant turns ‘hostile’, has died, or is unavailable, the demand of illegal gratification can still be proved by the evidence of any other witness (either orally or by documentary evidence) or by the prosecution proving the case through circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate, nor does it automatically result in an order of acquittal.
- Statutory Presumption (Section 20): On the proof of the foundational facts (demand and acceptance/obtainment), Section 20 mandates the court to raise a legal presumption (a shall presume) that the illegal gratification was for a motive or reward under Section 7. This legal presumption is mandatory but subject to rebuttal by the accused. Importantly, Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
Conclusion
The Constitution Bench concluded that there is no conflict in the previous three-judge bench decisions (B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy, and M. Narasinga Rao) regarding the necessity of proof when primary evidence from the complainant is unavailable. It reiterated that inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant is permissible based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Court emphasised the need for sincere efforts by the prosecution to ensure corrupt public servants are convicted so that administration remains unpolluted.
