Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)- Pioneer establishing the validity of Circumstantial Evidence under Corruption Laws

"Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

- Lord Acton

A hold of power is needed in the armor of legislation to cure the defect. Evidences in trial holds an important essence and renders justification to the sentencing held.

INTRODUCTION

Corruption is a deep rooted and inalienable practice in the society. To curb down corruption by way of deterrence, a special legislation was enacted, i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA, henceforth) which is resultant of constant development post independence. Role of Supreme Court of India is prominent in analyzing and interpreting the various dimensions of wider scope of law and thereby removing any error that might construe. The evidentiary value of direct evidence is concrete while determining corruption cases, but determinism of reliance and relevance of circumstantial evidence is a question.

Evidence is the foundation to justify the guilt of the offence and in case of absence of primary evidence which is the strong evidence, the circumstantial evidence is relied in certain cases only. It is a matter of question as to whether circumstantial evidence can be relied upon or not in the corruption matters under the PCA, which was discussed in Neeraj Dutta case.

VALIDITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER CORRUPTION LAWS

Corruption is a serious matter of concern in the Indian framework. The law relation to corruption that is PCA is dedicated to be strictly interpreted. The law holds those liable who give and those who take bribe (Public Servant). The case of Neeraj Dutta works as a pioneer laid out by the honorable Supreme Court of India to rely upon the circumstantial evidence where the purpose is to benefit and meet the ends of justice, where the complainant is dead.

In the Neeraj Dutta case, Neeraj Dutta, a clerk under the Delhi Vidyut Board, demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000/- from the complainant on the context of setting up of the electricity meter. The complainant informed the Police about it and a trap was accordingly set to catch the offender red handed. In the due course, prior to the commencement of the trial the complainant died and to avoid failure of justice, the 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court rules to consider circumstantial evidence. The rationale behind it was to invoke demand and acceptance which must be primarily adduced.

"Demand and acceptance" is sine qua non for corruption charges under the PCA. It is a matter of proving and disproving the demand and acceptance of bribe which sets the ground for the conviction of any person under corruption law. In the Neeraj Dutta case, the complainant being dead during the trial, the question as to upholding the veracity and establishing the proof of demand directly by primary evidence was negated. The 5 Judge Bench, thus opined to accept the circumstantial evidences in the interest of justice, where the complainant is dead.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In many of the rulings the courts have overlooked the admissibility of the circumstantial evidences on the ground of them weak in point of law as court held inP. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, the primary witness passed away in due course of the trail without proving that any bribery was there. The case had lack of foundational facts to establish the offence of bribery by the public servant. The case also specified that mere acceptance is not required to establish the offence of bribery and acceptance must follow the demand for bribe.

The question stands with respect to the admissibility of the circumstantial evidence. It might depend upon the adducing the circumstances that are qualified to be relevant to the facts in issue and consequently prove the offence being committed or bribe being taken. It is upon the courts to deduce their admissibility.

The main conviction before the adjudicating authority is to adduce the nature and the quality of the circumstantial evidence that is being laid down, which was the subject matter of law raised before the Court.

The admissibility and validity of circumstantial evidenced stands affront when there is absence of evidence to justify any bribery or case of undue advantage/illegal gratification attracted under Section 7 or 13 of the PCA in order to determine the offence committed by the public service in due course of public duty.

Relevance of a fact under circumstantial evidence is to be verifiable on the basis of it being 'factum probans', i.e. such facts that can prove or disprove the existence of relevant facts-in-issue i.e. 'factum probandum' of the case.

CONCLUSION

Circumstantial Evidence is a weak evidence and thus its admissibility has to be assured. The validity of the circumstantial evidence is to be thus substantiated on the basis of its quality and the strength it holds to prove the subject matter of bribery. Its applicability is cornered to the instances where the complainant is dead. Neeraj Dutta case is a landmark that allows the courts to rely on the circumstantial evidence to substantiate the cause of justice to the deceased complainant.

Justice is the bedrock of an efficient legal system and corruption is like a weed in a society which has to be cured. To ensure the interest of complainant (where he is dead) and to avoid paralysis of justice delivery mechanism the courts have partially allowed to rely on circumstantial evidence but not on the behest of any irrelevant fact that does not corresponds to the facts-in-issue. It is also a measure to protect innocent public servant from allowing any case that may arise on this account.

REFERENCES

1. Neeraj Dutta v. State ( NCT of Delhi)
2. Validity of Circumstantial Evidences in Bribery cases
3. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh

Disclaimer - The writing is copyright of Medha Joshi, under the aegis of YLcube.