Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Without the Complainant: Constitution Bench Allows Circumstantial Proof Under PC Act

By an order of 28 February 2019, a two-judge bench doubted P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015), which held that inferential deductions to sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) were impermissible when the complainant's primary evidence was lost through his death (opening paragraph). On 27 August 2019 a three-judge bench saw B. Jayaraj and Satyanarayana Murthy as conflicting with M. Narsinga Rao (2001) and referred the question: absent the complainant's direct or primary evidence of demand, can a public servant's guilt be inferred from other evidence? (opening paragraph, paras 9, 28). The batch was placed before a five-judge Bench (opening paragraph).

The Court traced the trilogy: in B. Jayaraj the complainant did not support the prosecution, in Satyanarayana Murthy he had died, while in M. Narsinga Rao the conviction stood on other evidence despite hostile witnesses (paras 12, 57). Citing Hazari Lal, it noted that the passing of money need not be proved by direct evidence; circumstantial evidence will do (para 57). Proof of demand and acceptance remains a sine qua non, and mere acceptance or recovery without proof of the offer or demand is no offence (paras 2, 68). That fact in issue may be proved by direct oral or documentary evidence or, in their absence, by circumstantial evidence (para 68). A presumption of fact may be drawn only once the foundational facts are proved, while the Section 20 presumption is a mandatory presumption in law that applies to Section 7 but not to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) (para 68). Following Sat Paul, a hostile witness's evidence is not automatically rejected; its creditworthy, corroborated part can support a conviction (paras 66-67). There was therefore no conflict between the three decisions (para 69).