The Delhi High Court has overturned the conviction and one-year jail sentence of a Delhi police officer who had been found guilty of accepting a bribe of Rs 1,000 from a woman in 1991 in exchange for arresting her neighbor.

The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasized that in order to secure a bribery conviction, the prosecution must establish both the demand for a bribe and its acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the said matter, the court found that the statements of witnesses failed to sufficiently substantiate the 'proof of demand and acceptance'."

The Court in its recent order said, 

"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.

Case Brief -

The court was reviewing the appeal filed by the police official challenging the decision of the trial court on September 27, 2000, which had found him guilty of violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court in its order sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500.

The police officer's counsel contended that the complainant harbored a 'strong motive' to implicate him in a 'false case' due to her personal vendetta. Allegedly, her resentment stemmed from his refusal to arrest her neighbor.
 
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.

The accusation stated that the man had purportedly demanded Rs 2,000 from the complainant in exchange for arresting her neighbor, instructing her to make the payment in two installments. It further alleged that after the first installment of the bribe had been paid to the man, a raid conducted by Delhi Police's Anti-Corruption Branch resulted in the recovery of Rs 1,000 from him.

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.

Case Title: Mahal Singh v. State of Delhi