Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and one-year jail term awarded to a Delhi police official for taking bribe of Rs 1,000 from a woman in 1991 to arrest her neighbour.

The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the demand for bribe and its acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and in the present case, the "proof of demand and acceptance" had not been "substantiated" by the statements of witnesses.

"The demand for bribe followed by its acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies squarely on the prosecution," said the court in its order dated September 1.

The court was hearing the police official's appeal against the trial court verdict of September 27, 2000, and an order of sentence passed on September 29, 2000, where he had been found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500.

The counsel for the police officer argued that the complainant had a “strong motive” to get him involved in a “false case” as she had a grudge against him for not arresting her neighbour.

The prosecution contended that the complainant’s brother had a quarrel with their neighbour in 1991 and she filed a police complaint. The case was entrusted to the man, who was an assistant sub-inspector at the police station concerned at that time.

It claimed the man had allegedly demanded Rs 2,000 from the complainant to arrest her neighbour asking her to pay the amount in two instalments. It also alleged that after the first instalment of the bribe was paid to the man, Delhi Police’s Anti-Corruption Branch conducted a raid and recovered Rs 1,000 from the man.

The prosecution stated that when the man’s hands were put into a solution of sodium carbonate it turned pink as “phenolphthalein powder” had been applied to the currency notes earlier.

The single-judge bench said, “It leaves no manner of doubt that the prosecution in the instant case has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe either through direct or indirect evidence which constitutes the foundational facts and thus, it would be unsafe and impermissible to sustain the conviction of the appellant. As a result, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Delhi is set aside”.

However, the judge observed that the trial court “failed to appreciate” that the prosecution must prove the “demanding and acceptance” of the bribe by primary or secondary evidence.

“In the present case, PW7 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW6 (complainant) is untrustworthy as I cannot lose sight of the fact that the veracity and credibility of the complainant is in question as the appellant has assailed the character of the complainant on the ground of improvement and further she has several criminal antecedents, which needs independent corroboration”, it said.

The judge also said that the evidence of the complainant did not “inspire confidence” and was “uncorroborated” by any other witnesses and noted the complainant wanted to satisfy her “ulterior motives” only to get her neighbour arrested and to get favours in the investigation.

“The solution turning pink in the absence of demand (for a bribe) will have no bearing as the law is settled in this regard. Hence, the demand for bribe either by primary or by secondary evidence has not been proved,” the single judge bench said.

Case Title: Mahal Singh v. State of Delhi