C.M. SHARMA versus STATE OF A.P. TH. I.P.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 25-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1105 
C.M. SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. TH. l.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13 (1)(d) 
A 
B 
rlw s. 13 (2) -Demand of illegal gratification by public servant 
C 
and voluntary acceptance thereof - Conviction and sentence 
ulss. 7 and 13 (1 )(dj rlw s. 13(2) by courts below- Justification 
of - Held: Justified - Ingredients of ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d)(ii) 
satisfied - There is evidence of demand of illegal gratification 
and voluntary acceptance thereof - Evidence of contractor, o 
shadow witness and Inspector who laid the trap, satisfactory 
-
Contractor who gave bribe, cannot be said to be an 
accomplice as the same was extorted from him - Evidence 
of contractor corroborated in material particulars by shadow 
witness - Evidence -
Testimony of a witness -
Corroboration 
E 
of 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
'Accomplice' -
Connotation of 
PW-1, contractor was awarded th_e contract of 
F 
Railway Electrification. The appellant-Deputy Chief 
Engineer, Railway Electrification passed the final bill and 
demanded certain amount as illegal gratification from the 
contractor. The pre-trap exercise was conducted. PW7, 
Inspector of CBI, PW-2 Inspector of Central Excise 
G 
(shadow witness) and PW-1, the contractor, participated 
in the pre-trap exercise in which the appellant was 
apprehended after he had accepted the bribe. The 
appellant was convicted and sentenced u/ss. 7 and 13 
1105 
H 
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A (1 )(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the appellant filed the 
instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, there does not seem 
any reason to reject the evidence of the contractor, the 
shadow-witness and the Inspector who laid the trap. 
[Para 9) [1114-A-B] 
1.2 The word 'accomplice' has not been defined 
C under the Evidence Act and, therefore, is presumed to 
have been used in the ordinary sense. A person 
concerned in the commission of crime, a partner in crime 
and associate in guilt is an accomplice. He takes part in 
the crime and is privy to the criminal intent. A witness 
D forced to pay on promise of doing or forbearing to do any 
official act by a public servant, is not a partner in crime 
and associate in guilt and, therefore, cannot be said to 
be an accomplice. It has long been rule of practice, which 
has become equivalent to rule of law, that the evidence 
E of an accomplice is admissible but to be acted upon, 
ordinarily, it requires corroboration. Contractor who gave 
bribe, therefore, cannot be said to be an accomplice as 
the same was extorted from him. [Para 11] [1115-F-H; 
F 
1116-A-B] 
Oalpat Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1969 
SC 17 - referred to. 
1.3 The further corroboration of evidence of a 
witness is required when his evidence is not wholly 
G reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be 
broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, 
partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly 
reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material 
particulars from other evidence. However, in a case in 
H which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is 
C.M. SHARMA v. STATE OF A.P. TH. l.P. 
1107 
necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of A 
the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead 
to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, 
therefore, there may not be any person who could see 
the giving and taking of bribe. In the instant case, a 
shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the 
appellant did not allow him to be present in the chamber. 
Acceptance of the submission in abstract would 
encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification 
in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of 
prosecution. Law can not countenance such a situation. 
It is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness 
is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness. Not 
only this, corroboration of the evidence of a witness can 
B 
c 
be found from the other materials on record. In the instant 
case, there does not seem any reason to reject the 
0 
evidence of the contractor, PW.1. His evidence is further 
corroborated by the evidence of the shadow-witness, 
PW.2. The shadow-witness stated in his evidence that 
when he entered the chambe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.