Delhi High Court shows no mercy to cop over Rs 300 bribe in 1999 case

“The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, the positive phenolphthalein test, the presence of the accused at the spot, and the sequence of events immediately before and after the transaction together form a complete chain of circumstances. These circumstances lead to a clear and reasonable inference that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money,” the April 15 order read.

Bike theft, bribe and a raid

• It was placed on record that the complainant’s motorcycle, which was registered in his name, was stolen in April 1999, and he lodged a First Information Report (FIR) concerning the same at Patel Nagar Police Station.
• It was said that his motorcycle was later recovered by the police from Mathura.
• The investigation of the case was conducted by Head Constable Sumer Singh of Patel Nagar Police Station.
• The complainant had received the motorcycle as per the orders of the court.
• However, the head constable allegedly took the motorcycle’s registration certificate (RC) from him, stating that it had to be incorporated in the case file.
• The complainant claimed that despite repeated requests to return the RC, the constable initially demanded Rs 3,000, which was later reduced to Rs 300.

• It was alleged that on April 3, 2000, at around 4 pm, the accused demanded and accepted Rs 300 as illegal gratification for returning the RC.
• Subsequently, the man lodged a complaint with the anti-corruption branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), based on which pre-raid proceedings were drawn, and the raid was conducted.
• The trial court, by an order of October 3, held the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine.
• Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present appeal in the Delhi High Court.

‘Voluntarily accepted bribe’

• It was placed on record that the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and a trap was laid to catch the constable red-handed, following which the tainted money was recovered from his pocket.
• The Delhi High Court pointed out that the main question is whether the prosecution has established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused while discharging his official duty.
• It reiterated that mere recovery of money is not sufficient unless demand is proved, but clarified that such demand can also be inferred from circumstances.
• The court also pointed out that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in total, and the court may rely upon those portions of the testimony which appear credible and inspire confidence.
• It was held that minor inconsistencies do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, and there is no material to suggest any possibility of planting of money or any serious inconsistency affecting the core of the case.
• It was also added that the recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused is a strong and important circumstance against him in the case.
• The circumstances of the case lead to a clear and reasonable inference that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money.
• The Delhi High Court pointed out that merely because the chargesheet or the final report is submitted before the trial court, that does not mean that no paper or file connected with the crime would remain in the police station.
• It was highlighted that the case diary of the crime would always be with the police, and consequently, it was held that there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution’s case that the RC was returned from the file.

Arguments

• Appearing for the constable, senior advocate Rajdipa Behura argued that his client has falsely been implicated in the present case and there is no evidence of any demand for illegal gratification by the accused.
• Assistant public prosecutor Utkarsh submitted that the said judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court.
• He emphasised that even if the complainant is partially hostile to the prosecution’s case, the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses was rightly relied on by the trial court to conclude the guilt of the accused.