Supreme Court overturns conviction in a 2003 bribery trap case, highlighting evidentiary inconsistencies.
SUPREME COURT ACQUITS PARITALA SUDHAKAR IN BRIBERY CASE OVER LACK OF EVIDENCE
CASE SUMMARY – In Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of a former Revenue Inspector accused of accepting a ₹2000 bribe. The Anti-Corruption Bureau had laid a trap based on a complaint, and money was found in his motorcycle’s bag. However, the apex court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of direct evidence of demand or acceptance, and potential animosity between parties. As the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 was not triggered, the Court acquitted the appellant and ordered refund of the fine.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana |
| Introduction | Appeal filed by Paritala Sudhakar challenging conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging demand and acceptance of bribe during his service as Revenue Inspector. |
| Factual Background | Sudhakar allegedly demanded ₹2000 as a bribe to process compensation for dried trees. A trap was laid by ACB, and money was found in his motorcycle bag. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | Court found inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of direct evidence of demand or acceptance, and possible animosity between complainant and accused. |
| Conclusion | Supreme Court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction, ruling that the guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Current Scenario | Conviction quashed; appellant acquitted; fine ordered to be refunded. |
“The benefit of doubt must be extended where the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT ACQUITS PARITALA SUDHAKAR IN BRIBERY CASE OVER LACK OF EVIDENCE
