Court Affirms Conviction of Former ASI for Bribery, Dismisses Appeal Citing Credible Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Baldev Singh, a former Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), on charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, dismisses Singh's appeal against his conviction and sentence for demanding and accepting illegal gratification.
Baldev Singh was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from Ashok Kumar Yadav, the complainant, to avoid implicating him in false cases. The prosecution alleged that Singh received Rs. 5,000 as part of this demand. The trial court had earlier sentenced Singh to rigorous imprisonment and fines under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Singh was acquitted of charges under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, including testimonies from the complainant and members of the trap team that conducted the sting operation. Despite some witnesses becoming partially hostile, their testimonies corroborated key aspects of the prosecution's case, which relied heavily on the positive results of the phenolphthalein test indicating acceptance of the bribe.
Justice Sudha noted procedural lapses but emphasized that these did not prejudice the accused or vitiate the proceedings. The court rejected arguments regarding inconsistencies in witness statements and the alleged invalidity of the prosecution sanction, affirming that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the case materials before granting prosecution sanction.
The judgment also clarified legal procedures regarding the use of witness statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that contradictions must be properly proved by drawing attention to relevant parts of previous statements.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on combating corruption within law enforcement, underscoring the importance of credible evidence and procedural rigor in upholding convictions.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) upheld - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification established through credible evidence despite partial hostility of witnesses - Procedural lapses in proving contradictions and omissions discussed.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 145, 154, 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 207, 232, 313, 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Baldev Singh v. C.B.I., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844636
