A Gujarat accident, 2 cops, a Rs 100-bribe case, and acquittal 27 years later

The case goes back to an accident involving an auto-rickshaw in Gujarat’s Patan district in January 1999. Bhanuprasad Oza, an auto-rickshaw operator, found himself at the centre of a police probe after the three-wheeler hit a cyclist. According to the prosecution, Tripathi asked Oza for the auto-rickshaw’s documents, then warned him that the vehicle would be seized and he would be arrested. The prosecution said that when Oza asked if there was a way out, Tripathi allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 1500. They eventually negotiated it down to Rs 900. Oza paid Rs 800 on the spot and promised Rs 100 later.

The next day, the prosecution said, a policeman came to Oza’s home and demanded the balance amount and the rickshaw’s papers. The cop asked Oza to appear at Pipla Gate Police Station. Instead of paying up, Oza went to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Mehsana and registered a complaint. ACB officials laid a trap. The two policemen were given notes smeared with anthracene powder as the bribe and then caught red-handed. Anthracene, a fluorescent chemical, is used to taint currency notes for bribe traps.

The Special Judge at Patan convicted the two in 2005, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment. But when the case reached the High Court, the witnesses’ depositions unravelled the prosecution’s version.

Oza, the prosecution’s chief witness, gave an account that conflicted with the case against the accused.

He said the officer who allegedly demanded the bribe and earlier accepted Rs 800 was not present when the trap was laid. Oza told the court that he placed the anthracene-treated notes in another policeman’s pocket before signalling the raiding party. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the first accused neither demanded nor accepted any money from him.

The shadow witness gave another version, saying the accused refused the money and asked Oza to hand it to a colleague. The court found the accounts did not match. A shadow witness is a person sent by a law enforcement agency to observe an anti-bribe operation.

The judgment leaned heavily on a Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling, which held that proof of demand and acceptance of a bribe is essential to establish the guilt of the accused public servant. Justice Vyas noted that the legal presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act can only arise once demand and acceptance are proved as facts.

“Mere recovery of the tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused if the core evidence in the case is unreliable,” the court held, adding there was no proof that the money was voluntarily accepted as a bribe. The High Court said that where the evidence allows two equally plausible views, the one favouring the accused must prevail, as an equally plausible case of innocence itself creates “reasonable doubt” about the prosecution’s case.

Concluding that the trial court had failed to appreciate the contradictions and convicted the two policemen, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence, ordered that the two men be set free of all charges, cancelled their bail bonds and directed that any fine already paid be refunded.