Supreme Court: Whether the court can acquit accused if complainant was of criminal background?

 The High Court also accepted the defence version made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded the findings that the possibility of Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the Respondent-accused when he shook hands with the complainant cannot be ruled out. The High Court further took note of various subsequent developments that certain complaints were filed against him by the CBI having disproportionate assets. The complainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor was a man having a criminal background. He was involved in a murder case as well as in a case of sale of shares in bogus names. The High Court further observed that in case two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be given preference, thus gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondent accused and acquitted him.{Para 9}

10. Undoubtedly, the reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the Respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be co-related with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the Respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit. 

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution case if genesis of the case is not disclosed correctly?

The case of the complainant was that on 1.6.1994 he went to the house of the Respondent-accused and after bargaining, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day as part payment of the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/-. He immediately went alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma (PW. 3), the shadow witness to Harish Kumar (PW. 12), DCP and the plan for trap was prepared and the trap was laid. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2), the Executive Magistrate has categorically stated that he had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner in writing on 31.5.1994 to join the trap party on 1.6.1994. Therefore, it is evident that in case the complainant himself had gone to Harish Kumar (PW. 12) for having a trap on 1.6.1994, the question of receiving a direction from the Deputy Commissioner on 31.5.1994 could not arise. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2) is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly.

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Red full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court lays down guidelines for appreciating prosecution case in the case of prevention of Corruption Act

The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368

Print Page

Supreme Court: Merely Lodging A False FIR Is Not Abetment Of Suicide

 In our view, lodging an FIR, even if

it is false, against a person, per se, does

not amount to instigating that person to

commit suicide. Besides, here the FIR was

lodged by the deceased’s wife who had

suffered injuries. Otherwise also, every

individual has a right to take recourse to

appropriate proceedings under law to protect

his or her rights. Therefore, if a person

sets the criminal justice delivery system in

motion, he cannot be held liable for

abetment to commit suicide, if the person

against whom proceedings were initiated

commits suicide. {Para 22}

23. Admittedly, the appellant(s) were

residing separate from the deceased and,

therefore, they cannot be considered having

such an overbearing influence over the

deceased that they could instigate him, or

drive him, to commit suicide.

24. While assessing whether a prima facie

case of abetment to commit suicide is made

out or not, the court must not merely

consider the allegations in the suicide note

but also the surrounding facts of the case.

Merely because a dejected husband, or lover,

out of frustration, ends his life and puts

the blame on the accused, in his suicide

note, is not enough to conclude that a prima

facie case is made out against those who are

blamed. The court would have to consider

whether the conduct of the accused

complained of in ordinary circumstances

would have driven an ordinary person, not an

over sensitive person, to take that drastic

step to end his life.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026

SLP (Crl.) No(s). 18705/2025

PATEL JOSHNABEN PRAVINKUMAR PATEL & ORS. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: 2026 INSC 886

Dated: August 18, 2026

Print Page