1974 (3) TMI 122 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds conviction of Assistant Sub-Inspector under Prevention of Corruption Act

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an Assistant Sub-Inspector under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused's appeal ... - Issues:- Appeal against conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act- Discrepancies in evidence and defense version- Credibility of prosecution witnesses- Re-assessment of evidence by higher courtsAnalysis:1. The case involves an appeal against the conviction of an Assistant Sub-Inspector under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was charged with demanding a bribe for effecting an arrest based on complaints made by individuals. The prosecution presented a detailed account of events leading to the accused's arrest, including the recovery of marked currency notes from his possession. The Trial Court and the High Court both found the prosecution witnesses credible and convicted the accused, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.2. The defense version put forward by the accused, claiming innocence and suggesting a setup by a witness, was disbelieved by the courts. The accused's explanation that the marked currency notes were planted in his pocket while he was away was not accepted due to lack of evidence supporting his claim. The courts found discrepancies in the defense version and the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, leading to the rejection of the accused's plea of innocence.3. The credibility of prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, was a crucial aspect of the case. While minor criticisms were raised regarding the witnesses, the courts found their testimonies to be reliable and consistent. The courts also considered the testimony of police constables, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, as crucial in disproving the defense version. The courts emphasized the importance of assessing witness credibility based on probabilities and intrinsic credibility rather than general suspicions.4. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that in cases under Article 136, the court does not re-weigh evidence unless there is a clear indication of perversity or manifest injustice. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding discrepancies in evidence and the credibility of witnesses, the courts did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the conviction. The appellate court's re-assessment of the evidence reaffirmed the lower court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the conviction of the accused.