Supreme Court of India
PARITALA SUDHAKARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 655
- Decided
- 8 May 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, so the presumption under Section 20 did not apply and the conviction was set aside.
Summary
The appellant, a former Revenue Inspector, was accused of demanding a Rs.2,000 bribe to conduct an inquiry into compensation for drought‑damaged trees and of accepting the money, which was allegedly recovered from a bag attached to his motorcycle during a trap operation. The trial court and the High Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of the witness testimony, noting material contradictions, the absence of the "triple test" for trap cases (prior verification of demand, shadow witness, and a successful pH test), and the lack of a clear demand. The Court also held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not operate where demand was not established. Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof, granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and quashed the lower courts' judgments.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of a bribe under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies when the demand is not proved.
- Whether the "triple test" for trap cases—prior verification of demand, use of a shadow witness, and a successful pH test—was satisfied.
- The effect of material contradictions in witness testimony on the prosecution's case.
- Whether the benefit of doubt principle mandates acquittal in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 20, s. 7
Headnote
Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offence punishable u/s.13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Act by the trial Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes† – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – The complainant sought compensation for trees that dried due to drought – Allegation that appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report – A trap was laid for appellant – It was alleged that at
Subjects
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988BribeTrap casePresumption under Section 20Benefit of doubtWitness contradictionsTriple test for trap cases
Judgment
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 180 : 2025 INSC 655
Paritala Sudhakar
v.
State of Telangana
(Criminal Appeal No. 2541 of 2025)
09 May 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offence
punishable u/s.13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Act by the trial Court.
The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) –
The complainant sought compensation for trees that dried due
to drought – Allegation that appellant demanded a bribe of
Rs.20,000/- to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report – A trap
was laid for appellant – It was alleged that at the decided place,
appellant asked PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag
attached to the petrol tank of his motorcycle – Accordingly, PW1
kept the bribe amount in the said bag – PW1 then signalled to
the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant –
The trap party then approached the appellant and questioned
him regarding the bribe amount – Tests were conducted on
the hands of the appellant which proved negative – However,
money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the
petrol tank of the appellant’s motorcycle:
Held: To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the
incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and
the appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the appellant for
quarrelling with PW1 – However, the High Court has disbelieved this
aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same – On perusal
of the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material
on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the
evidence of the witnesses – From all the official versions of the
witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected
sequence of events by the prosecution-respondent, of both (i)
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 181
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol
tank of the appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether
the same was in the presence of the appellant, does not seem
to inspire confidence – The same cannot be said to have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt – As far as presumption u/s.20
of the Act is concerned, the factum of demand, in the backdrop of
an element of animus between the appellant and complainant, is
not proved – In such circumstances, the presumption u/s.20 of the
Act would not militate against the appellant – Thus, the conviction
and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside, extending to
him the benefit of doubt – The judgments of the Courts below are
quashed. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22]
Case Law Cited
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh [2016] 7 SCR 713 : (2017) 11
SCC 195; Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka [2017] 4 SCR
934 : (2017) 13 SCC 98; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana [2006]
1 SCR 423 : (2006) 2 SCC 250 – relied on.
Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. [2024] 7 SCR 640 : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1689; Rajesh Gupta v. State [2022] 2 SCR : 864
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107; K Shantamma v. State of Telangana
(2022) 4 SCC 574; Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra
[2023] 11 SCR 1135 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038 – referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Bribe; Prior verification of
demand by investigator; Use of shadow witness; Successful pH
test; Trap cases; Contradictions in evidence of witnesses.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
2541 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 157 of 2008
182 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Sekhri, Ashish Raghuvanshi,
Pareekshit Bishnoi, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Devina Sehgal, Vineet George.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-convict
(hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the
Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’).
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the
Judgment dated 29.01.2008 of the learned Additional Special Judge
for Special Police Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Calendar1 Case
No.19 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and
sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six
months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also
for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2)
of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year
and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months.
1 [Mis-spelt as ‘Calender’ in the Trial Court Judgment.]
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 183
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
FACTUAL POSITION:
3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as
a Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRO’) posted at Gundala Mandal,
Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh
between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant
submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming
compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO
forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting
an inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when
the complainant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PW1’) approached
the Appellant to discuss a matter regarding compensation for the
damaged trees, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand) to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report.
It was further alleged that on 07.08.2003, PW1 met the accused
officer and requested that he is not in a position to pay such huge
amount, whereupon the accused officer is said to have stated that
unless the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) is
paid to him, he would not come to the village for inspection. It is
alleged that the Appellant finally asked PW1 to come with the bribe
amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and meet him at his
residence at Mothukur Village on 11.08.2003.
4. Aggrieved by these demands, PW1 filed a written complaint with the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad
Range, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW7’) on 08.08.2003.
PW7 registered a case being Cr. No.19/ACB-HR/2003 against the
Appellant under Section 7 of the Act, on 11.08.2003.
5. On 11.08.2003, in presence of independent mediators, PW1 and
others, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. The trap party then
went to the Appellant’s house. The house of the Appellant was found
locked and PW1 was informed by the Appellant’s neighbours that
the Appellant had gone to the MRO at Gundala. From the house,
independent witness-PW2 and PW1 went on scooter to the MRO,
where PW7 and the other trap members followed them in a jeep.
PW1 met the Appellant in the MRO. The Appellant informed that he
would come over to Ambala Village and meet him. PW1 and PW2
came out of the office and informed PW7 that the Appellant would
184 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
meet him at Ambala Village. Again, PW1 and the trap party members
went to Ambala Village and waited there. Around 6 PM, the Appellant
came on his motorcycle and PW1 approached him, whereafter the
Appellant and PW1 both went to PW1’s house on their respective
vehicles. Both vehicles were parked in front of PW1’s house. The
Appellant visited the garden/fields of PW1 and thereafter returned
to PW1’s house.
6. The Appellant had tea and informed that he would conduct
‘panchanama’ in the presence of the mediators in the garden and
asked PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag attached
to the petrol tank of his motorcycle. Accordingly, PW1 kept the
bribe amount in the said bag. PW1 then signalled to the trap party
indicating acceptance of bribe by the Appellant. The trap party then
approached the Appellant and questioned him regarding the bribe
amount. Tests were conducted on the hands of the Appellant which
proved negative. However, money was recovered from the rexine
bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s motorcycle.
7. On 29.01.2008, considering the evidence and after hearing
arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial
Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and
sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand)
and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period
of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act
and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand)
and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period
for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Act.
8. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s Judgment dated 29.01.2008, the
Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 before the High
Court and on 06.03.2024, the High Court delivered the Impugned
Judgment, whereby it dismissed the Criminal Appeal on the grounds
that the prosecution had successfully established the element of
demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 185
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:
9. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant contended that the triple
test for gauging trustworthiness of trap cases i.e., (i) Prior verification
of demand by investigator; (ii) use of shadow witness, and; (iii)
successful pH test are entirely absent, in the instant case.
10. Learned senior counsel contended that the entire factual matrix
surrounding the alleged bribe is extremely flawed. It was submitted
that the alleged demand was made during the late evening of
11.08.2003 at PW1’s house where there were no independent
witnesses. The demand was also not heard by any of the trap team
members who were present at the scene of the incident. It was argued
before us that the complainant also failed to disclose the fact that
he had previously approached the MRO for grievance(s) regarding
drought compensation, and this had led to a prior altercation with
the Appellant. This shows a further insight into the entire (alleged)
crime being a farce and a ploy to take revenge from the Appellant,
due to prior animus between the Appellant and PW1.
11. It was argued that there is no verification of alleged demand or of
the genuineness of the grievance made before deciding to lay trap.
It was contended that the need for proper verification of demand and
allegation has been held to be a settled convention in trap cases as
per the recent judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mir
Mustafa Ali Hasmi v State of A. P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689.
12. Reliance was further placed on Rajesh Gupta v State, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1107 and K Shantamma v State of Telangana, (2022) 4
SCC 574, wherein conviction was overturned due to the prosecution’s
failure to adequately prove demand by means of evidence.
13. While referring to DW1’s (complainant’s wife) statements, it was
pointed out that her narration of the events that transpired completely
contradicted the one given by the complainant-PW1. In fact, the
wife had not supported the case of any demand being made at the
time when both parties were present in the house. It was, hence,
urged that the appeal be allowed, as there was no evidence worth
the name available against the Appellant.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to Paragraph
no.17 of the Trial Court Judgment and contended that ordinarily, a
186 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
demand for illegal gratification would not be made openly by corrupt
officials to avoid being reported and to safeguard their reputation.
Therefore, the absence of other direct witnesses to the demand
would not amount to controverting or denying the demand but would
only suggest that the same was not made in the presence of other
persons. In fact, PW2 had stated in his examination-in-chief that the
Appellant had asked the complainant about the bribe amount and
after nodding his head, the Appellant instructed the complainant to
meet him at the crossroads. It was submitted that as to the fact that
PW2 was not inside the room when the afore-noted conversation
occurred, he was just outside the door, showing that he was at a
hearing distance.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no motive for
complainant to falsely concoct a story against the Appellant and
even if the altercation between complainant and the Appellant is
believed to have taken place, it was an attempt by the Appellant
to signal to the complainant that his application for compensation
would be rejected unless he approves it. This was nothing more
than a prelude to the demand being made by the Appellant of
illegal gratification and it only strengthens the Respondent’s case.
Furthermore, it was urged that the presumption against the Appellant
would be operative under Section 20 of the Act, as recovery was
effected from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the
Appellant’s motorbike.
16. Learned counsel contended that though it was brought to the Court’s
attention that the complainant had contradicted his statement when
he stated that the Appellant was not with him when he placed the
money in the pouch/bag, but the same is not true as the complainant
had corrected his statement(s) thereafter in the cross-examination.
But, even if it were to be believed that only the complainant was
present at the time the money was kept, as noted by the Trial
Court, there is a clear line of sight from inside the house towards
where the Appellant’s motorcycle was parked. Therefore, even in
such scenario, it is clear that the currency notes were placed in
the Appellant’s bag with his knowledge and upon his instructions,
hence, establishing the acceptance of illegal gratification. Even while
referring to the statements made by DW1, it was contended that the
entire conversation relating to the bribe amount happened while she
was preparing tea for the parties, so naturally, she could not have
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 187
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
heard anything. It was urged that the appeal deserved dismissal at
the hands of this Court.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record,
it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence
of the witnesses. In this connection, it would not be out of place to
take note of the observations in Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh,
(2017) 11 SCC 195 to the following effect:
‘29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are
not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The
test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind
of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be
accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent
in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy
goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities,
the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies.
It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission
cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore,
minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant
embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution
case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject
the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a
serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a
witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions
which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not
every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi v. State of
M.P. [Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649: 2000
SCC (Cri) 26], Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [Leela
Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525: 2000 SCC
(Cri) 222] , Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh
[Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC
186: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435], Vijay v. State of M.P. [Vijay v.
State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639],
Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police [Sampath Kumar v.
Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri)
42], Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. [Shyamal Ghosh v.
188 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
685] and Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab [Mritunjoy Biswas
v. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 564].)’
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Krishnegowda v State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, it was
observed as under:
‘26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court
we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the
fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each
and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the
part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the
witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis
for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence
is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the
evidence of witness is bound to happen because there
would be considerable gap between the date of incident
and the time of deposing evidence before the court, but
if these contradictions create such serious doubt in the
mind of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses
and it appears to the court that there is clear improvement,
then it is not safe to rely on such evidence.
28. In the case on hand, the evidence of the eyewitnesses
is only consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on
the deceased but on all other factors there are lot of
contradictions which go to the root of the matter.
xxx
32. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives
and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of
independent witnesses for the incident which took place
on a public road in the broad daylight. Although there is
no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses
has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 189
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent
witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses
is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The minor
variations and contradictions in the evidence of the
eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of
the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the
prosecution case then those contradictions go to the
root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets
the benefit of doubt.
33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness
of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, “witnesses
are the eyes and ears of justice”. In the facts on hand,
we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with
discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions
which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the
evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict
the accused.’
(emphasis supplied)
19. To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident,
there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the Appellant,
and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the Appellant for quarrelling with
PW1. However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without
assigning any reason(s) for the same. Further, PW1’s version itself
during his deposition before the Trial Court is self-contradictory,
inasmuch as initially he stated in his examination-in-chief that both
he and the accused officer came back to his house and were drinking
tea inside the house, when PW1 came out and kept the amount in
the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s bike.
However, when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor
concerned, PW1 stated that the Appellant was with him when the
tainted currency was kept in the rexine bag attached to the petrol
tank. Why this aspect is of significance is for the reason that if
the Appellant had come out of the house along with PW1 and in
full view of the trap party members who were just 20 yards away
and could witness the signal from PW1 of removing his spectacles
and wiping it and then they would, but naturally, also have seen
that PW1 had directly kept the bribe amount in the rexine bag
190 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of the Appellant. In
this background, the statement of PW7 that when the Appellant
was already on his motorcycle and was about to start it, he was
stopped and taken inside the house, where he was made to dip his
hand in the solution mixed with water, but his hands did not change
colour, is inexplicable for the reason that the trap party members
had already witnessed the complainant directly putting the tainted
notes, allegedly as demanded by the Appellant, in the rexine bag.
Thus, there was no occasion for the Appellant to be taken inside the
house to get his hands dipped in the solution, as the Appellant had
not touched the notes. Further, when the solution did not change
colour, PW7 states that he called the complainant to narrate what
had happened and then, upon coming to know that the money was
kept inside the rexine bag directly, the same was recovered and
the number of the notes matched with those which had been kept
for the purposes of the trap. The actual circumstances leading to
the recovered notes being kept by the complainant-PW1 directly
in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the motorcycle of
the Appellant are not forthcoming. To further confound the matter,
DW1-wife of the complainant stated that her husband/PW1 went
outside the house and again came back inside the house with the
Appellant. Thereafter, DW1 states, after consuming tea, both went
outside. Subsequently, the trap party entered the house along with
PW1 and the Appellant. Thus, from all the official versions of the
witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected
sequence of events by the prosecution-Respondent, of both (i)
the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol
tank of the Appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether
the same was in the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to
inspire confidence. The same cannot be said to have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion. In Suresh
Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1038, while allowing the appeals preferred by the convicts therein, it
was observed that when the Court is to choose between the version
proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence version, in the
face of reasonable doubt towards the prosecution story, the Court
should lean in the defence’s favour.
20. One further aspect which the Court would like to dwell on is that
as per the version of the witnesses themselves, at the very least,
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 191
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
what is common is that the Appellant had taken a round of the
horticulture garden of the complainant for preparing a report relating
to the claim of insurance/compensation for PW1’s trees which were
destroyed due to drought, whereafter the Appellant returned to the
house and had tea. The presence of DW1-wife of the complainant
inside the house, who prepared the tea, is undisputed. She has
stated during deposition that she was not aware of any demand by
the Appellant of any money for preparing any report. Thus, on an
overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the evidence on record and for reasons stated above, we find that
the guilt of the Appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Having found so, this is a case where benefit of doubt was
required to be given to the Appellant.
21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under
Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the
Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the
factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between
the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances,
the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against
the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v State
of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
‘22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the
prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence
story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly
improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden
of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the
Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved,
Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v.
Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 SCALE
246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC
401: (2006) 1 SCALE 116])’
(emphasis supplied)
22. Accordingly, for reasons afore-stated, the instant appeal is allowed.
The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside,
extending to him the benefit of doubt. The Judgments of the Courts
below are quashed.
192 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
23. As the Appellant was already granted exemption from surrendering,
no further orders are required to be passed in this regard. If fine
was deposited by the Appellant, let the same be refunded within four
weeks from date. No order as to costs.
24. I.A. No.91184/2024 is allowed – the Appellant is exempted from filing
a Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988"Sign in to search