The Kerala High Court has held that the court as a matter of practice requires corroboration in material particulars for conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice. The nature and extent of the corroboration required will vary with the circumstances of each case and particular circumstances of the offence alleged in each case.“There need not be independent confirmation of...
The Kerala High Court has held that the court as a matter of practice requires corroboration in material particulars for conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice. The nature and extent of the corroboration required will vary with the circumstances of each case and particular circumstances of the offence alleged in each case.
“There need not be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence of the accomplice should, in itself, be sufficient to sustain conviction. What is required is that there is some additional evidence rendering probable the evidence of the accomplice is true, and it is reasonably safe to act upon it to hold the accused has committed the crime,” said Justice Kauser Edappagath.
The observation was made in an appeal filed against the conviction of the appellant by Special Court under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is that the appellant while working as a Divisional Security Commissioner in the Railway Protection Force demanded through an employee working under him an amount of Rs. 10,000 each from 3 persons for effecting their transfer.
The accused turned approver, Anantha Narayanan communicated the demand of bribe to C. P. Johnny, I. K. Girish Kumar and C. Mohana Krishna and accepted money from them allegedly on behalf of the appellant. The tainted money of bribe given by the complainant and some alleged bribe money were recovered from Anantha Narayanan. He was later granted pardon under S. 306 of Criminal Procedure Code and was made an approver.
The depositions by the witnesses say that no money was given to the appellant and no demand for money was directly made by the appellant. All demand was made and money was collected on behalf of Anantha Narayanan. The case of the appellant was that Anantha Narayanan who was posted under DSC, Palakkad for a long period might have falsely used the name of the appellant.
The Court noted that the trial court used the evidence of the bribe givers to corroborate the evidence of the accomplice. It held,
"One accomplice cannot corroborate another. The corroboration of the evidence of the accomplices, if any, must come from an independent source."
The Court held that there is no evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe was done on behalf of the appellant. The conviction was thus overturned.
The Court also deliberated on the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15.
“The grant of sanction is not a mere formality but a solemn act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. All the relevant records and materials for the grant od sanction must be made available to the sanctioning authority, which must undertake complete and conscious scrutiny of those records and materials independently applying its mind before deciding whether to grant sanction or not.”
The sanctioning authority has to apply its mind independently while going through the materials and facts and decide whether the prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. In this case, the Court observed, even if the relevant documents were not there when it was first forwarded, they were there when it was perused by the sanctioning authority. It was further observed that, as per S. 19(3)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, no finding shall be reversed on the ground of omission or irregularity of the sanction, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact occasioned thereby. The appellant did not have a case that a failure of justice has been caused to him.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Abraham P. Meachinkara, P. Muraleedharan, Alexander K.C., Margaret K. James, Jayakrishnan P.R., Thomas George
Counsel for Respondents: Standing Counsel for CBI Advocate Sreelal Warriar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Case Title: Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No.: Crl. A. No 584/ 2016
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment