HAPPY WITH DENGUE FIGHT, CM CLAIMS CASES IN CITY DOWN, NOT A SINGLE LIFE LOST THIS YEAR | 11 Court Says Perception Of Corruption And Partiality Shakes People’s Faith In System
New Delhi: Corruption, lack of transparency, misuse of power and use of excessive force are a few reasons why people avoid or are scared of police. A special court noted this while awarding rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh to a Delhi Police officer for accepting a bribe in 2013.
Special Judge Kiran Bansal said the convict’s position as an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) should have made him more responsible towards society. However, the policeman breached the trust. The order also highlighted how ordinary citizens often found it difficult to get their cases registered without either bribing police or exerting influence on them.
While sentencing ASI Sube Singh, who accepted Rs 20,000 bribe from a family, the court said there was a general perception of police not behaving properly with complainants, witnesses and victims of crime. “The current case is another example where by dialling 100, the family of Prem Prakash invited trouble instead of help,” said judge Bansal.
The turn of events stemmed from a call made to police on May 31, 2013 about Prakash’s daughter-in-law attempting to commit suicide. Prakash’s family was allegedly threatened by Singh to pay the bribe or face a case of abetment to suicide.
“Police is also perceived to be corrupt and partial. Such is the legacy and image that a common man avoids approaching the po
Police is also perceived to be corrupt and partial. Such is the legacy and image that a common man avoids approaching the police station or seeking help unless the circumstances are compelling
KIRAN BANSAL |
lice station or seeking help unless the circumstances are compelling,” the judge observed. This observation was used to ask why would Prakash’s family otherwise go the police station around 10am on May 31, 2013 if they weren’t under the fear of implication in a false case.
On June 21, 2013, police received a complaint along with the CD of a video recorded from a hidden camera showing Singh accepting the bribe. Singh allegedly demanded Rs 50,000 from the family, but settled for Rs 20,000.
In his defense, Singh claimed that by the time he reached the place of incident, the family had settled the dispute. He also claimed that he had no occasion to demand a bribe. He argued that the instrument used to record the video was not produced by the complainant and the case was registered without verifying the contents of the CD.
Judge Bansal, however, noted that that the accused holding currency notes, coupled with the fact of Prakash’s requests with folded hands had clearly established that Singh had accepted Rs 20,000. “The current case is also an example of noble cause corruption, where the officer believes the good outcomes justify bad behaviour/corruption and tries to settle the family dispute between the husband and wife. The accused being a police official was duty-bound to assist in the protection of society and not to commit an offence,” the court held.
“Affairs of the state are conducted through its officials. Officials of the state are, thus, trustee of powers on behalf of the public at large. These officials are required to use the powers with utmost care and responsibility for whenever such powers are misused people lose faith in the system, which is not a positive sign in a democracy,” judge Bansal noted.