‘Ye Rs 10,000 hain’: Acquitting cop in Aaj Tak sting op, Delhi court says mere words without context don’t prove bribe demand

“Mere use of words by the reporter “bhai sahab ye ‘dus hajar rupay’ hain, oh, ‘panch hajar rupay hain’ ye, lekin bhai sahab ye hai aur dusra issue ye hai ki FIR na ho (this is ten thousand rupees… oh, this is five thousand rupees, but sir, the other issue is that no FIR should be registered),” without any context does not imply that there was any demand of a bribe from the side of the accused,” the May 11 order read. 

Special Judge Vidya Prakash observed that much of the prosecution’s evidence was hearsay in nature and could not be relied upon.

The Delhi court was hearing the case against Inspector Rajender Singh Naruka, who had been accused of accepting Rs 5,000 from an undercover journalist in exchange for not registering a First Information Report (FIR). 

‘Original iPhone never seized’

• The Delhi court took note of the transcript, which was claimed to be a narration of the conversation that allegedly took place at the time of the incident between the undercover journalist and the inspector. 
• It further noted that the said conversation did not support the case of the prosecution, since it lacked any conversation regarding a demand having been made by the accused. 
• The judge further observed that much of the prosecution’s evidence was hearsay in nature and could not be relied upon to establish the alleged bribery transaction.
• It also noted that the original iPhone allegedly used for the sting operation was never seized or produced before the court, raising serious doubts over the authenticity of the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
• The Delhi court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 
• Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court reiterated that mere recovery of money or allegation of payment is insufficient unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are independently proved through reliable evidence. 

TV programme, sting operation and case

The case stems from an FIR lodged on February 4, 2014, stating that a programme titled ‘Operation Delhi Police’ was aired on Aaj Tak TV news channel that day, in which some Delhi Police officers were allegedly seen accepting bribes.

In the said telecast, Inspector Rajender Singh Naruka, the accused, was also allegedly seen accepting illegal gratification of Rs 5,000 from an undercover journalist of the said news channel in lieu of settling a matter for not registering any FIR. 

According to the accused, the sting was conducted by journalist Akshay Singh along with intern reporters Sapan Gupta and Umesh Dung, using a fabricated dispute story to approach the officer at Pul Prahladpur Police Station.

The accused, on the other hand, claimed that this is a false case registered in connivance with the officials with an ulterior motive to increase the Television Rating Point (TRP) of their news channels, based on false, fabricated, tampered and doctored video footage and no such sting operation was ever conducted against him.

The prosecution claimed that Akshay Singh handed over Rs 5,000 to the inspector while secretly recording the interaction on an iPhone spy camera. The footage was later telecast on television.

However, during the trial, major evidentiary issues emerged. The original recording device was never produced before the court, key witnesses turned hostile, and the main journalist, Singh, had died during the investigation.

Arguments 

Appearing for the accused, advocate Vijay Bishnoi submitted that there was no concrete evidence led during the trial which could establish the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused, either from Akshay Singh or from any other person.

It was further added that the investigating agency did not seize the original source of the recording, i.e., the iPhone mobile handset, during the investigation, in the absence of which no authenticity could be attached to the evidence placed on record.

Chief Public Prosecutor Ravindra Kumar argued that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused in respect of the said offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

He further submitted that Singh had died during the investigation and thus, his non-examination as a prosecution witness during the trial was beyond the prosecution’s control.