SC: Circumstantial Evidence Enough To Nail Public Servants In Corruption Cases
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-12-17 07:30:48
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has come down hard on the spreading tentacles of corruption in officialdom. It has ruled that in cases of corruption involving government servants, circumstantial evidence will be enough to get conviction even if there is no direct evidence available. The court was constrained to pass this order as it is seen that in such cases, direct proof is often not available as complainants or witnesses turn hostile and retract their statements or withdraw the complaint due to various reasons. The court said that in the absence of any direct evidence, the prosecution may rely on corroborating evidence of other witnesses to nail the accused and courts must consider such evidence, even if it is circumstantial, to prove guilt and deliver verdicts. The court said that no leniency should be shown to corrupt government servants as "corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing honest officers."
The main problem in such cases in that according to the Prevention of Corruption Act, there must be proof of demand and then acceptance of illegal gratification and this must be conclusively proved to get a guilty verdict. In many cases, the complainants turns 'hostile', or are not available to provide direct evidence during trial or simply die before the evidence is recorded. The court has now ruled that in the absence of such direct evidence, the prosecution can provide evidence of other witnesses or other evidence that may be circumstantial but that proves the guilt. The Supreme Court has also ruled that all courts must consider such circumstantial evidence and apply their minds whether it proves the guilt.
Obviously, despite the Supreme Court ruling, it is natural that all such cases will need to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is also obvious that despite the nature of the crime of the accused, he or she will be entitled to a fair trial. These are two basic principles of common law that will need to be adhered to in all such cases. The Supreme Court had, in the case Ramesh Bhai & Anr versus the State of Rajasthan (2004), ruled that the "circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." The same must hold true in cases of corruption too.
