Direct evidence not necessary to convict public servants in corruption case, says Supreme Court
The court held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reported Live Law.
A Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna passed the judgement while examining whether a public servant can be convicted of the charge of illegal gratification in a corruption case despite there being no direct oral or documentary evidence.
“In the absence of the evidence of the complainant [through direct, primary, oral, documentary evidence], it is permissible to draw a deduction of culpability or guilt of a public servant under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) based on other evidence used by the prosecution,” observed Justice Nagarathna, the author of the judgement, reported The Hindu.
The judgement said that even if direct evidence of the complainant is not available during the trial due to death or other reasons, the public servant can be convicted by using “any other witness either orally or documentary evidence or the prosecution”.
“It is a sad but bitter reality that corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers,” the judgement said.