NEERAJ DUTTA versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 24 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
NEERAJ DUTTA
v.
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA,
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
s.13(2) – In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/
primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an
inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant u/ss.7
and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced
by the prosecution.
Reference Matter – Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 –
Whether B. Jayaraj v State of A.P & P. Satyanarayana Murthy v D.
Insp. Of Police, State of A.P. in conflict with M. Narsinga Rao v State
of A.P – Reference Answered – There is no conflict in B. Jayaraj
and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the decision in M. Narasinga Rao,
with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain
a conviction for offences u/ss.7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act,
when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary  evidence”
of  the complainant  is unavailable owing to his death or any other
reason – Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is  a  sine
qua non  in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant
u/ss.7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act – Prosecution has to first
prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent
acceptance as a  matter  of  fact and the same can be proved by
direct evidence – The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral and documentary evidence, if such
circumstantial evidences corroborates the foundational fact of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: s.20 – Scope of
Presumption used therein – s.20 envisages the law regarding the
presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 104
104
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
legal remuneration – The expression used therein is “shall presume”
which is legal or compulsory presumption – The said provision deals
with a legal presumption which is in the nature of a command that it
has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc.,
if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is satisfied
– It does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through
direct evidence but the only requirement is that it must be proved
that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.3 – Word “Fact” – “Factum Probandum
& Factum Probans” – Classification and Connection – Fact consists
of state of things, events or mental state – The principal fact (fact-
in-issue) constitutes Factum Probandum whereas the evidentiary fact
(relevant fact) constitute Factum Probans – Facts relevant to the
issue are evidentiary fact which render probable the existence or
non-existence of fact-in-issue or some other relevant fact.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.3 – Word “Evidence” – Scope – Evidence
may include the actual words of witnesses, or documents produced
– The term evidence is not restricted to only oral and documentary
evidence but also to other things like material objects, the demeanour
of the witnesses, facts of which judicial notice could be taken,
admissions of parties, local inspection made and answers given by
the accused to questions put forth by the Magistrate or Judge u/
s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 3, 59, 60, 61 – Classification of
Evidence – Evidence may be classified as direct evidence (original
evidence) and indirect evidence (substantial evidence) – Direct
Evidence establishes the existence of a thing or fact either by actual
production or by testimony or demonstrable declaration of someone
who  has himself perceived it and the same is devoid of any room
for  inference or presumption – Indirect Evidence gives rise  to  the
logical  inference that a fact-in-issue exists, either conclusively or
presumptively – Direct Evidence may constitute either oral or
documentary evidence – Indirect evidence may constitute evidence
which is circumstantial in nature.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.60 – Oral Evidence – Classification
and Scope – Oral Evidence can be either original or hea

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