When Demand is a Shadow, Conviction Cannot Stand: Madras High Court Acquits Electricity Officials in Bribery Trap

“Benefit of Doubt is the Shield When Prosecution’s Story Crumbles”: Madras High Court delivered a powerful verdict underscoring the fundamental principle of criminal justice — no conviction can stand on a shaky foundation of doubtful evidence and procedural lapses. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over Criminal Appeal Nos. 1186 and 1131 of 2023, overturned the conviction of two electricity board officials, M. Senthilkumar and R. Marudhamani, who were previously sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 for providing a temporary electricity connection.

“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof,” observed the Court, as it painstakingly dismantled the prosecution’s narrative by highlighting inconsistencies, hostile testimony, procedural irregularities, and potential malice behind the complaint.

The High Court was unequivocal in holding that “when the decoy witness himself turns hostile and the prosecution’s own witness delivers conflicting accounts, the foundation of conviction vanishes.” Noting the complete absence of direct proof of demand and the procedural violations under the Vigilance Manual, the Court held that the conviction could not be sustained in law.

High Court Quashes Conviction in Electricity Bribery Case

In a significant decision pronounced on 7th July 2025, the Madras High Court acquitted two public servants, M. Senthilkumar and R. Marudhamani, by setting aside their conviction. The officials had been accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a contractor for granting a temporary electricity connection. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed their appeals, citing gross irregularities, untrustworthy witness evidence, and a failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arose from a trap set by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing in 2012, following a complaint from a contractor, P.W.2, who alleged that the first accused, Marudhamani, demanded ₹3,000 to process an electricity application. The second accused, Senthilkumar, was caught receiving the bribe. The Trial Court convicted both under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment with fines.

Both accused appealed their conviction, asserting that the demand was fabricated, the acceptance stage-managed, and the entire trap was engineered by persons with malicious intent.

The High Court scrutinised the case through several legal prisms:

❝When the principal prosecution witness, the complainant (P.W.2), fails to corroborate the acceptance of money, and when there are glaring contradictions in official witness testimonies, the edifice of conviction crumbles,❞ the Court remarked.

Firstly, the Court noted the complainant turned hostile regarding the acceptance of the bribe and denied crucial portions of the prosecution’s case during cross-examination. This itself raised fundamental doubts.

Secondly, the Court pointed out material contradictions between P.W.2 and P.W.5 (official witness), and discredited P.W.5’s testimony by noting his subordinate rank in violation of vigilance norms. “The trap witness was of inferior cadre to the accused and was a stock witness used without proper authorisation,” observed the Court, stressing that such selection tainted the procedure.

Most crucially, the Court highlighted that even by the prosecution's own admission, no proper enquiry was made, no arrest memos were produced, and no independent evidence corroborated the version of the Vigilance authorities.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy emphatically stated, ❝If the Trap Laying Officer instructs to hand over the bribe only to a particular accused but the decoy voluntarily hands over money to another person, this creates insurmountable doubt.❞

The Court was also alarmed by the absence of any steps to produce crucial call recordings and pointed out inconsistencies in the call data records, suggesting the possibility of coaching or external interference.

Further, the Court acknowledged circumstantial evidence pointing towards malice, especially since the local Councillor, alleged to be inimical towards the officials, was found to have orchestrated the complaint through known intermediaries.

Referring to multiple judgments, including B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated the settled principle: ❝Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance cannot sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.❞

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy concluded, ❝This Court is left with no alternative but to grant benefit of doubt to the accused, considering the serious doubts cast on the prosecution’s story.❞

Accordingly, the High Court allowed both appeals, acquitted the accused of all charges, and directed refund of fines paid.

Upholding Justice Against Tainted Prosecution

In this compelling judgment, the Madras High Court reinforced the constitutional commitment to fair trial and due process, sending a strong message that procedural laxity, doubtful evidence, and possible vendetta cannot form the basis of conviction. ❝When prosecution’s own house is built on contradictions and circumstantial malice, justice demands acquittal,❞ the Court stated, closing the chapter on a flawed prosecution.

Date of Decision: 07.07.2025