1980 (2) TMI 285 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the appellant.
2. Prosecution's case and evidence.
3. Witnesses turning hostile.
4. Use of statements made during investigation.
5. Trustworthiness of evidence.
6. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. Relevance of previous judgments.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellant:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, for offences u/s 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500 on the first count, and two years of rigorous imprisonment on the second count, with sentences to run concurrently. The High Court of Delhi confirmed the convictions and sentences.

2. Prosecution's Case and Evidence:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a police constable, demanded a bribe of Rs. 60 from P.W. 3 for the release of a scooter rickshaw involved in an accident. P.W. 3 reported this to the Anti Corruption Department, leading to a raid where the appellant allegedly accepted the bribe and then threw the currency notes across a wall upon seeing the raiding party. The notes were recovered, and phenolphthelene tests confirmed their handling by the appellant.

3. Witnesses Turning Hostile:
Key witnesses, including P.W. 3 and P.W. 6, turned hostile during the trial, contradicting their earlier statements. P.W. 3 claimed that it was not the appellant but another officer who demanded the bribe, and that the appellant refused to accept the money. P.W. 4, a panch witness, also provided inconsistent testimony and was declared hostile.

4. Use of Statements Made During Investigation:
The Court noted that the lower courts improperly used statements made by witnesses during the investigation as substantive evidence, violating Section 162 of the CrPC. Such statements can only be used for contradiction purposes as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Trustworthiness of Evidence:
Despite the hostile witnesses, the Court found the evidence of P.W. 8, the Inspector who conducted the raid, to be entirely trustworthy. The Court emphasized that there is no rule requiring corroboration of a police officer's testimony merely because they conducted the raid.

6. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The Court inferred from the evidence that the appellant obtained the bribe from P.W. 3, triggering the presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, leading to the affirmation of his conviction.

7. Relevance of Previous Judgments:
The appellant's counsel cited Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration) to argue that mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the established circumstances in the present case justified the presumption of guilt.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellant.