Circumstantial evidence enough to hold public servant guilty of graft: SC

Five-judge Constitution bench lists terms for cases related to Prevention of Corruption Act

Circumstantial evidence is enough to hold a public servant guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) when direct evidence is absent, said the Supreme Court on Thursday.

A Constitution bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, V Ramasubramanian, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna and B V Nagarathna said that if direct oral or documentary evidence is not there in a graft case, circumstantial evidence will hold.

“In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be either proved by direct evidence, in the nature of oral evidence/documentary evidence. Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct, oral, or documentary evidence,” said the bench while reading out the operative part of the judgment.

The court clarified that the presumption of demand or acceptance of a bribe would be made by the court only when foundational facts are proven.

The court elaborated aspects to be considered to prove guilt. If a public servant does not demand a bribe in the first place but accepts it later, they would be guilty. However, mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offense under PCA.

The court, on November 22, reserved its judgment on whether in the absence of primary evidence in graft cases it can rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the guilt of a public servant under the PCA.

The court noted that in the event the complainant turns hostile or dies or is unable to let in his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence either orally or documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. “The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the public servant,” the court said.

The case was heard after a division bench in 2019 referred this matter to a larger bench to determine whether the offense of graft could also be proven by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct proof.