Supreme Court Upholds Bribery Conviction for Head Constable

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 161, Penal Code, and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant, a Head Constable, was found guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe, supported by reliable testimonies and physical evidence. The High Court's acquittal of a co-accused did not impact the appellant's conviction. The statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied, and the technical defect in the charge was deemed cured. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and rigorous imprisonment sentence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand and acceptance of bribe.
2. Investigation and evidence collection.
3. Acquittal of co-accused.
4. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Competence of the High Court to convict under Section 161 with the aid of Section 34, Penal Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe:
The appellant, a Head Constable, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from Ghanshamsinh to avoid arrest on a false charge of abduction. The appellant initially demanded Rs. 2,000, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,000, with Rs. 500 to be paid immediately. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimonies of Ghanshamsinh (P.W. 1), Panch Mahendra (P.W. 4), and Inspector Desai (P.W. 8). The appellant admitted to accepting the money but claimed it was given to him by Mahendra, who falsely represented himself as a relative of the Sub-Inspector.

2. Investigation and Evidence Collection:
Inspector Desai recorded Ghanshamsinh's complaint and set up a trap with tainted currency notes. Upon receiving the signal, the police party recovered the notes from the appellant's drawer. The presence of anthracene powder on the hands of the appellant and Ghanshamsinh, but not on Mahendra, corroborated the prosecution's version. The trial judge's rejection of the prosecution's case was based on speculative grounds without evidence.

3. Acquittal of Co-accused:
The High Court acquitted Accused 1 due to lack of independent corroboration of the demand for a bribe. However, this acquittal did not affect the evidence against the appellant, who was found to have demanded and accepted the bribe independently. The appellant's actions were corroborated by reliable testimony and physical evidence.

4. Presumption Under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The statutory presumption under Section 4(1) was fully attracted upon proof of the appellant accepting the bribe. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence. The High Court found the appellant's defense, including the alleged enmity with Ghanshamsinh and the supposed lack of a formal complaint, insufficient to displace the presumption of guilt.

5. Competence of the High Court to Convict Under Section 161 with the Aid of Section 34, Penal Code:
The appellant contended that the High Court could not convict him under Section 161 simpliciter since the charge was framed under Section 161 read with Section 34. The High Court clarified that despite the charge's wording, the appellant was aware of the specific allegations against him, and no prejudice was caused. The technical defect in the charge was cured under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 161, Penal Code, and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the rigorous imprisonment sentence for the appellant.

---