New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and one-year jail term awarded to a city police official for allegedly taking a bribe of Rs 1,000 from a woman in 1991 to arrest her neighbour.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said 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 a recent order on the police official’s appeal against the trial court verdict.
“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 constitute 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,” the court said.
According to the prosecution, the complainant’s brother had a quarrel with their neighbour in 1991 and she filed a police complaint. The case was entrusted to the appellant, a sub-inspector at the police station concerned at that time.
The appellant allegedly demanded Rs 2,000 from the complainant to arrest her neighbour and subsequently asked her to pay the amount in two instalments.
It was alleged that after the first instalment of the bribe was paid to the appellant, a raid party of the Anti-Corruption Branch recovered Rs 1,000 from him. His hands were put into a solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink as phenolphthalein powder had been applied to the currency notes earlier, according to the prosecution.
In 2000, the trial court found the appellant guilty of offences under sections 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fined him Rs 500 on each count.
The appellant, represented by lawyers Anurag Andley and Kshitij Arora, argued that he had been implicated in a false case and the complainant, against whom three-four cases were already pending, had a strong motive as she held a grudge against him for not arresting her neighbour. With agency inputs