Court affirms that conviction stands on strong testimony of panch witness and raiding officer despite complainant turning hostile; sentences appellant to rigorous imprisonment with fine
In a significant judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Rajinder Singh @ Babloo, thereby upholding his conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant had challenged the verdict on the grounds that the complainant and other key witnesses had turned hostile, and that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of demand and acceptance of gratification.
The case arose from an incident dated December 5, 2006, when the complainant, Ravinder Singh, seeking a duplicate driving licence at the Transport Authority office in Janakpuri, came into contact with the appellant, who assured facilitation of the licence issuance for a sum of Rs. 1,300, inclusive of government fees. Frustrated by lack of assistance from public officials, the complainant approached Rajinder Singh @ Babloo, a tout known to operate in government offices.
Unbeknownst to the appellant, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) and participated in a sting operation. The ACB officials conducted pre-raid proceedings, including the treatment of marked currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. During the raid on the Transport Authority office, Rajinder Singh @ Babloo and his associate Mukesh Kumar were caught accepting the marked money. The money was recovered, and incriminating receipts were seized from the appellant during personal search.
Despite the complainant turning hostile during trial-denying knowledge of the case or visiting the ACB office-the court relied heavily on the cogent and unwavering testimony of the panch witness Lalit Kumar and the raiding officer Inspector Sunil Kumar. Lalit Kumar testified to witnessing the demand and acceptance of the tainted money, as well as the transfer of notes to the co-accused. The raiding officer's evidence corroborated the sequence of events and recovery of money.
The court noted that the complainant's hostility alone does not demolish the prosecution case when his signatures on the complaint and connected documents are admitted and corroborated by other reliable witnesses and evidence. It further emphasized that the unexplained possession of cash receipts relating to fees paid in the names of the complainant and another person, recovered from the appellant, constituted an additional incriminating circumstance.
The appellant's defense that he was merely present at the Transport Authority for his own work and had no role as a tout was rejected. His prior conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was also considered, marking him as a habitual offender engaged in corrupt facilitation.
The court reiterated the three essential ingredients for conviction under Section 8 PC Act-solicitation or receipt of gratification, the gratification being a motive or reward for inducing a public servant, and convincing evidence connecting the money to such inducement-and held that these were established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies and evidentiary material.
Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months along with a fine of Rs. 10,000, dismissing the appeal. The appellant was directed to surrender forthwith, with the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold convictions in corruption cases even when complainants turn hostile, provided the prosecution produces reliable and cogent evidence from independent witnesses and recovery of tainted money. It sends a strong message against the nexus of touts and corrupt public officials facilitating illegal gratification in government offices.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 8 Conviction of tout/private person for accepting gratification to induce public servant - Even if complainant turns hostile, conviction can be sustained on the basis of reliable and cogent testimony of panch witness and raiding officer coupled with recovery of tainted money and related receipts - Mere hostility of complainant is not fatal where demand, acceptance and recovery are otherwise proved.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 8; Indian Penal Code Section 120B; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 207, 313, 374, 428
Rajinder Singh @ Babloo v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994112
