VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 235
515
decision of the High Court cannot be sustained on the basis of the
reasoning which found favour with it. The finding of guilt, recorded
by the Sessions Court, will therefore have to be examined afresh on
merits, since the High Court has altogether failed to undertake the
exercise of scrutinizing, and making assessment of the evidence. If
only the High Court had performed this function, as usual, and had
recorded its finding in regard to the question of reliability and credibility
of witnesses, and, after weighing the probabilities, and taking into
account the circumstantial evidence, had recorded a finding of fact,
as it was expected to do, the Supreme Court would not have been
obliged to undertake this function which properly falls within the sphere
of the High Court in its capacity as the appellate court. As it is, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court
have no option but to do so here.
The Supreme Court dealt with the prosecution case and
observed that the High Court set aside the finding under serious
misconception on an altogether untenable reasoning, which even
the counsel for the respondent has not been able to support.
The Supreme Court held that in case of an offence of
demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the
circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the
prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the
complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn
hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such
evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with
the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there
should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
(235)
(A) Misconduct — in non-official functions