Summary and Analysis of Mini vs CBI/SPE Cochin

1. Heading of the Judgment

Mini vs CBI/SPE Cochin
Criminal Appeal No(s). _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11212/2022)
Supreme Court of India
Decided on August 13, 2025
Coram: Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation: Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin, (2025) INSC 980.

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets:

• Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Deal with bribery by public servants.

• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Requires courts to examine the accused to explain incriminating evidence.

• Principle of Benefit of Doubt: If evidence creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.

3. Basic Case Details

Parties:

• Appellant: Mini (widow of deceased convict Mohanachandran N.K.).

• Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Core Charges:

• The deceased accused, a clerk at Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, was convicted for demanding ₹500 as bribe (over ₹1000 passport fee) to expedite a passport application.

• Trial Court & High Court: Convicted him based on trap evidence.

Key Issue:

Can conviction stand if the complainant turns hostile and the defense plausibly explains the incriminating circumstances?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Prosecution Case

• The complainant (PW1) alleged the accused demanded ₹500 extra for urgent passport processing.

• A trap was laid: Complainant gave ₹1200 (₹1000 fee + ₹200 bribe) at the accused’s residence.

• Accused was caught; tainted money recovered from him.

Defense & Trial

• Complainant turned hostile: Denied bribe demand during trial.

• Accused’s statement (Sec. 313 CrPC):
  He received only ₹1000 (passport fee) and documents.
  Was unaware that two ₹100 notes (₹200) were hidden between ₹500 notes.

• Trial Court ignored defense: Convicted accused based on trap evidence. High Court upheld conviction.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. Hostile Complainant:
   PW1 retracted his initial complaint, claiming a CBI employee misled him to trap the accused.
   No independent proof of bribe demand.

2. Unreliable Recovery:
   ₹1000 was lawful fee; only ₹200 was alleged bribe.
   No evidence accused counted money or knew about extra ₹200.

3. Defense Ignored by Lower Courts:
   Accused’s explanation under Sec. 313 CrPC was plausible:
   Complainant approached him via an advocate for help.
   He received money assuming it was only passport fee.
   Courts failed to consider this defense seriously.

4. Benefit of Doubt:
   Prosecution could not prove:
   Demand of bribe.
   Accused’s awareness of excess money.
   Conviction set aside: Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.

Decision

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the deceased accused.

• Lower courts’ judgments set aside.

Key Quote:

"When the complainant disavows the bribe demand and the defense plausibly explains recovery, conviction cannot stand. Benefit of doubt must prevail."