JUDGMENT
S.I. Jafri, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Ram Narayan Yadav seeking thereby to set aside the conviction under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentences of two years’ R.I. and one year’s R.I. under the aforementioned sections respectively awarded to him in Criminal Trial No. 2 of 1979 by Sri S. S. Srivastava, Special Judge, Deoria, vide his judgment and order dated 12-8-1983 in S.T. No. 2 of 1979.
2. Before descending on the prosecution case on the date of occurrence, it is worthwhile to delineate the facts and circumstances bearing upon the prosecution case preceding the date of occurrence in order to properly appreciate the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in aid thereof. The allegations are that the appellant was a Trainee Sub Inspector and was posted at Police Station, Rudrapur, District Deoria in the year 1978. Chandrama Prasad Kewat complainant of the instant case was a resident of village Jungle Pipra situated within the circle of Police Station, Rudrapur, District Deoria. The aforesaid complainant had a brother named Rajdeo, who had twice been arrested and sent to Jail in cases under Sections 399/402, I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act. In both the cases, he had been bailed out. In the latter case i.e. under Section 25, Arms Act, Rajdeo had been set at liberty on bail by the Court concerned about 7-8 days prior to the date of the occurrence of the instant case. According to the complainant Rajdeo was arrested on the first occasion from his house in his village at about 7 a.m. at a time when he was engaged in thrashing and on the second occasion he was arrested from village Bhatauli Buzurg at 4 p.m. within the circle of P. S. Gauri Bazar at a time when he was ploughing the field. The harassment began when on being bailed out in both the aforesaid cases, the accused-appellant, namely, Ram Narayan Yadav, the trainee Sub Inspector had again started contemplating to involve the complainant’s brother Rajdeo and also the complainant in some trumped-up cases. The accused Sub Inspector, thus, put a demand upon the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 500/ -as illegal gratification in order to keep himself and his brother out of trouble, failing which he shall send them to Jail in some false cases. When the demand of Rs. 500/- from the Sub Inspector continually persisted, the complainant submitted to pay Rs. 200/- at Laulahahi Bazar on 23-8-1978 at about 3 p.m. in order to keep himself and his brother away from any harm. Chandrama Prasad Kewat in the meantime, made an application Ex. Ka-13 before V. K. Bajpai, Deputy Superintendent (Anti-corruption Cell), Gorakhpur on 23-8-78, alleging that the aforesaid Sub Inspector had been harassing and putting illegal demand on him to pay Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification or else he and his brother Raj Deo shall be implicated and sent to jail in some false cases. Ultimately, it was prayed in the said application that the above Sub Inspector may be caught red-handed while accepting the bribe from him. V. K. Bajpai, Dy. Supdt., Gorakhpur (Anti-corruption Cell) recorded the statement of the complainant in his office itself at Gorakhpur. Thereafter, the complainant was directed by V. K. Bajpai to meet him at about 3 p.m. at village Chhapauli with Rs. 200/- for giving the same to the Sub Inspector as the complainant had told him that he had not brought the money with him. Consequently, V. K. Bajpai along with Inspector Satya Narain Singh, constable Sant Raj Yadav and Peon Sehti reached Chapauli village at about 3.30 p.m. the same day in a jeep. Chandrama Prasad complainant met the Raiding Party there and he handed over Rs. 200/- to V. K. Bajpai in the presence of public witnesses Sidh Nath Pandey and Ganesh Singh of village Chhapauli in the Baithaka of the Math at Chaupauli. Thereafter, V. K. Bajpai, P.W. 1 noted down the numbers of currency notes given by the complainant and prepared memo, The Dy. S. P., then, powdered the aforesaid currency notes with phenolphthalein and handed them back to the complainant for being given to Sub Inspector Ram Narayan Yadav as bribe on his demand. The complainant took the aforesaid currency notes in his right hand and placed them in the upper left side pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, the complainant’s right hand was washed in sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. A sample of the said solution was ‘preserved in a phial in sealed cover and a joint memo Ex. Ka 4 to this effect was prepared on the dictation of V. K. Bajpai. The complainant was instructed by V. K. Bajpai that as soon as the appellant accepts the illegal gratification from the complainant he should signal to the Raiding Party by catching hold of the legs of the accused-appellant. Along with the complainant, two witnesses, namely, Sidhnath Pandey and constable Sant Ram Yadav moved forward from Chhapauli Math at about 4.40 p.m. for giving the bribe to the Sub Inspector. After ten minutes of the departure of complainant and the witnesses, V. K. Bajpai, along with Satya Narain Singh, Inspector and others also followed them. After covering some distance, V. K. Bajpai and his partymen noticed on the road itself in front of the village Jungle Pipra near the culvert three armed persons one Sub Inspector and two constables in Khaki Uniform talking to the complainant and the witnesses. V. K. Bajpai and Satya Narain Singh, Inspector took their seat in a tea shop situated on the left side of the road and asked for tea. V. K. Bajpai then saw the accused Sub Inspector and the complainant talking at a distance of 8 to 10 paces from the constables and the witnesses but after about 10 minutes, the Sub Inspector and the constables left towards Chhapauli on cycle at about 6 p.m. As the complainant had not caught hold of the legs of the accused, V. K. Bajpai understood that the money had not passed into the hands of the Sub Inspector. After a little while, the complainant came to V. K. Bajpai and told him that the appellant Sub Inspector had rebuked him and insisted for payment of Rs. 500/- instead of paying Rs. 200/- and he had asked him to pay Rs. 500/- to him next day at about 8 a.m. in his village where he himself would come for taking the money. The complainant further said that he had been again threatened by the Sub Inspector for sending him to Jail in the event of his failure to pay Rs. 500/-. V. K. Bajpai then recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the Dy. S. P. after giving necessary instructions to the complainant and his witnesses with regard to laying of the trap next day in the village of the complainant at 8 a.m., left for Gorakhpur.
3. Next day i.e. 24-8-1978 V. K. Bajpai along with Inspector Satya Narain Singh and others left Gorakhpur at about 6 a.m. in a Jeep and leaving the Jeep at a distance of one furlong from the village Chhapauli they marched to the village Jungle Pipra on foot and settled down in the Tea shop of Ram Lagan Kewat situated on the left side of the road. Chandrama Prasad, complainant and the witnesses were found sitting on a bench at the Tea shop of Shanker Baniya situated on the right side of the Road. V. K. Bajpai sent constable Sant Raj to Chandrama Prasad. They all waited for the arrival of the Sub Inspector-appellant up to 11 a.m. but the appellant Sub Inspector did not turn up. Meanwhile, the mother of complainant Chandrama Prasad came there and informed V. K. Bajpai that a man had come to her house with the message that her son Chandrama Prasad should meet the Sub Inspector-accused at the Police Station, Rudrapur in the evening the same day. Learning this, V. K. Bajpai, Satya Narain Singh, Chandrama Prasad and witnesses left in a Jeep for Rudrapur. The party arrived at Gola Bazar Chauraha, Rudrapur at 6.30 .p.m. the same evening and there V. K. Bajpai instructed Chandrama Prasad Kewat to go and meet the appellant Sub Inspector at the Police Station along with constable Sant Raj Yadav introducing him as his relation for paying the bribe money on his demand. Consequently, both Chandrama Prasad and Constable Sant Raj Yadav proceeded towards the Police Station and they met the Sub Inspector Ram Narain Yadav just in front of the Police station. Upon seeing Chandrama Prasad, the appellant Sub Inspector asked the complainant to wait and meet him at Gola Bazar Chauraha where he would be arriving soon. At about 7.15 p.m., Ram Narayan Yadav Sub Inspector appellant arrived at Gola Bazar Chauraha covering himself with an Umbrella as it was drizzling: While talking with Chandrama Prasad, the Sub Inspector proceeded with the complainant towards west from the Chauraha on Naguwa Road. The witnesses and constable Sant Raj Yadav also followed them. After a short distance the Sub Inspector and the complainant while talking together stopped in front of the tea-shop of Bindeshwari. At that time, V. K. Bajpai and Satya Narain Singh were already sitting inside the Tea shop of Bindeshwari on a bench. The accused-appellant asked Chandrama Prasad as to why he had brought only Rs. 200/- when he had asked him for Rs. 500/-. The Sub Inspector further said to the complainant to pay up the remaining amount as well in due course and if he pays the full amount, he and his brother would remain safe so long as he is posted at the Police Station. Thereafter, the accused-Sub Inspector demanded the money from the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant took out the money i.e. Rs. 200/- from the pocket of his shirt and delivered the same in the right hand of appellant Sub Inspector. The appellant counted the money with his hands and stuffed the same into the upper leftside pocket of his Bush-shirt by means of his right hand. Thereafter, the accused-appellant moved towards the Police Station. Without losing any time, V. K. Bajpai appeared at the scene of occurrence and disclosed his identity to the appellant. On being told by V. K. Bajpai that he had accepted the illegal gratification from Chandrama Prasad, complainant, the Sub Inspector-appellant got unnerved and he made a vain bid to throw the currency notes out of his pocket by means of his left hand, but his attempt was squelched by V. K. Bajpai by catching hold of his left hand while Inspector Satya Narain caught hold of his right hand. The’ appellant in the meanwhile also made unsuccessful efforts to free his hands from the grip of V. K. Bajpai and Inspector Satya Narain Singh. However, the accused-appellant managed to push the money inside his under-shirt and bush-shirt. Meanwhile the rains picked up and V. K. Bajpai and others including the witnesses along with the accused appellant came inside the Janta Medical Store which was situated nearby. The Medical Store belonged to Dr. Naseer Ahmad Siddiqi. It was inside the Janta Medical Store that accused-appellant was subjected to a search and the search of his person yielded the same currency notes of Rs. 200/- which Chandrama Prasad had delivered to the Sub Inspector. These were also the same currency notes which Chandrama Prasad had given to V. K. Bajpai on 23-8-1978 at village Chapauli who after noting the numbers of the currency notes in the memo Ex. Ka 4 and after powdering them with phenolphathalein had returned the same to the complainant for being given to the Sub Inspector as bribe. The numbers of the currency notes also tallied with the number of currency notes mentioned in the aforesaid memo. A recovery memo Ex. Ka 6 was prepared by V. K. Bajpai in the presence of witnesses e.g. Dr. Naseer Ahmad Siddiqui, Sidharth Pandey, Ganesh Singh and others who had also signed the recovery memo Ex. Ka 6. The recovered articles service revolver etc. from the person of the Sub Inspector including the recovered bribe money of Rs. 200/- were sealed. Thereafter, both the hands of accused were dipped into the water and washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution became pink. The solution was preserved in a clean phial and sealed and a memo was also prepared. The upper left pocket of the bush-shirt of the accused was also subjected to washing in sodium carbonate solution. The colour of the same also turned pink. Likewise the under shirt of the appellant was also dipped for washing in sodium carbonate solution and the solution also turned pink. The bush-shirt and the under shirt were sealed in a bundle and requisite memo was prepared. The aforesaid solution was also preserved in a clean phial and sealed. A memo was also prepared for the same. The recovered articles including a service revolver from the possession of the Sub Inspector were taken possession of and, thereafter, the raiding party reached police station, Rudrapur along with the accused and the accused was put behind the lock-up of the Police Station while the recovered articles were placed in the Malkhana. The chik report was prepared by Kamlesh Tiwari, PW 3 on the basis of the recovery memo Ex. Ka 6 at 9.15 p.m. the same day submitted by V. K. Bajpai. A case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered in the General Diary of the Police Station against the Sub Inspector Ram Narain Yadav. Thereafter, necessary investigation followed and after completing investigation, Ugra Sen Pal Singh submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 1-12-1978.
4. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and attributed his false implication in the case to enmity. There is specific defence of the appellant that no money as bribe had been recovered from the possession of the appellant and in support of his contention, the accused has examined four witnesses. DW 1 is Sri S. S. Shahi, Principal, D. N. Inter College, Rudrapur, who deposes that on the day of occurrence, while on way back home after purchasing vegetables he saw C.I.D. men had encircle the appellant Sub Inspector and on seeing him, the appellant had complained to him that C.I.D. men were implicating him in some case falsely. DW 2 is Man Bharan Singh who was working at the time of his deposition as Asstt. Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in the Police Office of Deoria. He has deposed to the effect that the appellant was a Trainee Sub Inspector and he has proved the appellant’s training programme. DW 3 is R. N. Yadav, Arm Moharrir No. 142, Police Lines, Gorakhpur. He deposed that on 23-8-1978, a service revolver .35 bore and 30 cartridges were issued to Inspector Satya Narain Singh. DW 4 is S. N. Singh, Head Constable, P.S., Rudrapur, District Deoria. He has proved the criminal record against Rajdeo about the two criminal cases in which Rajdeo had been involved.
5. The learned Special Judge upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as mentioned supra.
6. In order to arrive at a just conclusion on appraisement for the evidence on record which were relied upon for conviction of the appellant by the learned Special Judge, Deoria it is necessary to scrutinise the evidence with great caution and circumspection.
7. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the appellant and out of them, PW 1 V. K. Bajpai, Dy. Superintendent (Anti – Corruption), Gorakhpur, Satya Narain Singh, PW 2, Inspector of the aforesaid Cell and Chandrama Prasad, PW4, complainant are the material witnesses of the occurrence and that of the recovery. The remaining two witnesses, namely, Ugrapal Singh, PW 4 and Kailash Tiwari, PW3 are the Investigating Officer and constable Moharrir respectively and their evidence is thus of a formal nature.
8. The conviction of the appellant hinges on the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses. At the very outset, it is worthy of mention that V. K. Bajpai, PW 1 and Satya Narain Singh, PW 2 are the Police witnesses whereas Chandrama Prasad, PW 4 is the complainant of the case. They all were members of the raiding party who succeeded in getting the accused trapped while accepting the bribe money.
9. In order to properly appreciate the case of the prosecution, it is worthwhile to descend upon the testimony of PW 4, Chandrama Prasad for scrutiny and to see whether his evidence inspires confidence to be acted upon for conviction of the appellant.
10. Chandrama Prasad, PW 4 is the complainant and he has dwelt upon the prosecution case at length. However, his evidence needs to be narrated in material particulars bearing upon the instant case.
11. Chandrama Prasad, PW 4 deposed that his brother Rajdeo was first sent to Jail in the year 1978 for the offence under Sections 399/402, I.P.C. and he was bailed out. Thereafter, his brother was again arrested and sent to Jail for the offence under Section 25, Arms Act and 7-8 days preceding the date of the present occurrence, his brother Rajdeo had come out from Jail on bail. He further deposed that soon after release of Rajdeo in the second case on bail, the Sub Inspector Ram Narayan Yadav began to pester him either to pander to an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- or he and his brother would be booked in some false cases and sent to Jail. Being jaded with the constant threats pouring from the Sub Inspector, Ram Narain Yadav, he approached V. K. Bajpai, Dy. Superintendent (Anti-Corruption) Cell, Gorakhpur on 23-8-1978 with an application Ex. Ka-13 stating therein that the Sub Inspector had made an illegal demand to pay Rs. 500/- as bribe at Lohthra Bazar the same day and out of fear of repraisal for non-payment of the money he had agreed to pay Rs. 200/- to him. Besides, he had set out all the details and the harassments at the hands of the Sub Inspector Ram Narain Yadav as enumerated above in the aforesaid application Ex. Ka-13. V. K. Bajpai, Deputy Superintendent (Anti-Corruption) Cell, then took down his statement and enquired whether he had brought the currency notes for being given to the Sub Inspector. As he had not then brought the money With him, he was instructed by V. K. Bajpai to be available with money at village Chhapauli, at 3 p.m. the same day. He further stated that he again met V. K. Bajpai, Dy. Superintendent, Satya Narain Singh, Inspector and others at village Chhapauli on the road at about 3.30 p.m. the same day. V. K. Bajpai and others took him to Chhapauli Math, where he had delivered Rs. 200/- to V. K. Bajpai, who took down the numbers of the currency notes and treated them with chemical. Thereafter, V. K. Bajpai handed back the same currency notes to him in the presence of witnesses, Sidhnath Pandey, Ganesh Singh and constable Sant Raj Yadav with the instructions that as soon as the appellant Sub Inspector accepts the money, he would catch hold of the legs of the Sub Inspector Ram Narain Yadav. He then took the powder treated currency notes in his right hand and kept the same in his pocket. Thereafter, V. K. Bajpai subjected his (complainant’s) right hand’s finger-tips to washing and the water turned pink. The aforesaid water was preserved in a clean phial and sealed by V. K. Bajpai. It was further stated by him that V. K. Bajpai then instructed him to go forward for delivery of bribe money to the Sub Inspector and witnesses Sidharth Pandey, Ganesh Singh and Sant Raj Yadav were also directed to follow him closely so as to over-hear the talks between him and the accused Sub Inspector. He then moved towards Luhuti Bazar and at a short distance, he came across with the Sub Inspector accused and two constables in Khaki Uniforms on the culvert, near the tea-shop of Shanker. V. K. Bajpai. and others, who were following him (complainant) at a close distance, stopped at the tea shop of Shanker, 10-11 steps away from the culvert where he (the complainant) and the accused-appellant and two constables in Khaki Uniform were engaged in talks. The witness also deposed that on seeing him, the appellant Sub Inspector remarked that he was looking for the complainant for days together upon which complainant replied that he had been busy in connection with the operation of his wife and that he had been able to arrange Rs. 200/- only. The appellant-Sub Inspector”” told the complainant that he would not accept the money today in the presence of the two constables and that the complainant should make arrangement of Rs. 500/ – and he would himself come to his village to accept the money next day. Thereafter, the appellant Sub Inspector headed towards Rudrapur on cycle along with two accompanying policemen. On being told of the talks held between the complainant and the appellant Sub Inspector, V. K. Bajpai again took down the statement Ex. Ka-5 of the complainant. V. K. Bajpai then left for Gorakhpur instructing the complainant and the witnesses that he would be arriving at village Chhapauli next day i.e. at 8 a.m. on 24-8-1978 and they should be present there. Next day at about 7 a.m., V. K. Bajpai, Inspector, Satya Narain Singh and others arrived at the tea shop of Shanker at village Chhapauli where the complainant including his witnesses had met them. The raiding party waited for the arrival of the accused Sub Inspector up to 11 a.m. Meanwhile, complainant’s mother came there and informed V. K. Bajpai that a man had come to her house who had dropped a message that her son (the complainant) should meet the Sub Inspector at the Police Station; Rudrapur the same evening. Thereafter, V. K. Bajpai, Deputy Superintendent (Anti-Corruption) Cell, Gorakhpur instructed the complainant and the witnesses to re-assemble at the tea shop of Shanker at 5 p.m. The witness further stated that he and his witnesses assembled again at Shanker’s tea-shop and proceeded on a jeep along with V. K. Bajpai and others and arrived at Chauraha Rudrapur at about 6.30 p.m. They alighted from the jeep at the aforesaid Chauraha and V. K. Bajpai instructed him to go inside the Police Station along with constable Sant Raj Yadav introducing him to the Sub Inspector, as his relation for giving bribe to the Sub Inspector. After being instructed by V. K. Bajpai again, he (complainant) along with witnesses and Constable Sant Raj Yadav proceeded towards the Police Station, Rudrapur. At the gate of the Police Station itself, the accused Sub Inspector met the complainant who directed him to see him at the Chauraha Gola Bazar where he would be reaching shortly. Thereafter, he retreated towards the Chauraha and on the way, he had told V. K. Bajpai of the talks held between him and the accused Sub Inspector V. K. Bajpai, settled himself on a bench in the tea-shop of Bindeshwari situated on the Nagua Road along with Inspector Satya Narain Singh. It was further stated by him that he stood at a place near the Chauraha waiting for the arrival of the appellant Sub Inspector. After a short while, the accused Sub Inspector was seen coming from the direction of the Police Station with an umbrella in his hand as it was then drizzling. He, then, met the appellant Sub Inspector Rani Narain Yadav and walked together towards west on Nagua Road and at 2-3 steps away from the shop of Bindeshwari, the accused Sub Inspector enquired from him whether he had brought Rs. 500/-. He then replied that he had been able to arrange Rs. 200/- only. The accused Sub Inspector told him that he (complainant) and his brother should continue to meet him at the Police Station and should pay the remaining amount subsequently. He also asked him to pay up whatever money he had brought with him. It was also assured by the Sub Inspector that no action would be taken by him against the complainant and his brother Rajdeo. The complainant then took out the money from his pocket by means of his right hand and handed over the same to the accused Sub Inspector which he took in his right hand and placed the currency notes in his left pocket. At that moment, V. K. Bajpai, Dy. Superintendent and Satya Narain Singh, Inspector came there and encircled the appellant-Sub Inspector. V. K. Bajpai disclosed his identity to the appellant Sub Inspector calling upon him at the same time to take out the money which he had accepted from complainant Chandrama Prasad as illegal gratification. The . appellant Sub Inspector made an attempt to throw the money out of his pocket, but it was foiled by V. K. Bajpai, who had caught hold of his left hand whereupon the appellant Sub Inspector stuffed the said currency notes in his bandi (inner shirt). Thereafter, Satya Narain Yadav, Inspector also caught hold of the right hand of the appellant and while constable S. R. Yadav caught hold of the collar of the appellant. As the rain had picked up by then, the appellant was taken inside Janta Medical Store situated at about 8-10 steps away where V. K. Bajpai took the search of the accused and he recovered the currency notes from the possession of the appellant Sub Inspector in the presence of the witnesses. The hand of the accused were subjected to washing in chemical solution which turned pink. The above solution was collected and preserved by the Dy. Superintendent in clean phial and sealed. Thereafter, Sri. V. K. Bajpai prepared recovery memo of currency notes recovered from the appellant. The witnesses Sidhnath Pandey, Ganesh Singh and Dr. Naseer Ahmad Siddiqi put their signatures on the recovery memo along with others. The upper left pocket of the bush-shirt of the accused was also washed in sodium corbonate solution and the colour of which had turned pink. Likewise under-shirt of the appellant was also dipped in the aforesaid solution which also turned pink and the resulting wash was preserved in phial and sealed. The under-shirt and bush-shirt of the appellant were sealed in one bundle. Pistol and other articles which were also recovered from the person of the appellant were taken possession by V. K. Bajpai and recovery memos were prepared in the presence of witnesses Sidhnath Pandey, Ganesh Singh and Dr. Nisar-Ahmad Siddiqi. Thereafter, the complainant deposed that V. K. Bajpai and others took the appellant to the Police Station along with the recovered articles.
12. It is true that apparently the prosecution case as set up points to the guilt of the appellant, but the bitter pill difficult to be swallowed, is the want of independent corroboration of the testmony of the complainant including the police witnesses. So far as testimony of Chandrama Prasad Kewat, the complainant is concerned as can very well be inferred from his evidence that he was inimical towards the appellant Ram Narain Yadav on account of complainant’s brother Rajdeo having been arrested by him on two earlier occasions for various offences. It has not been brought on record to show as to what had happened in those two cases and whether the two cases in which complainant’s brother had been sent to Jail were the false cases foisted on Rajdeo. No documentary evidence has been filed by the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused Sub Inspector had challaned complainant’s brother Rajdeo. in trumped-up cases. The bald statement of the complainant that his brother Rajdeo was arrested from his house and after release from Jail he was arrested again while he was ploughing the field does not receive corroboration from any other evidence on the record. It has come in the evidence of Chandrama Prasad that on being constantly pestered with the demand of money from the appellant, he had approached. V. K. Bajpai for baiting a trap for the appellant. The evidence of Chandrama Prasad could well be accepted provided it had been lent corroboration by independent and disinterested evidence. Under the circumstances, the evidence of Chandrama Prasad cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. The fact that Chandrama Prasad was inimical to the accused from before the trap is quite apparent and, therefore, his service cannot be treated otherwise except motivated by animosity towards the appellant. Apparently the evidence of Chandrama Prasad, PW I has been lent full support in all material particulars by V. K. Bajpai, PW 1 and Satya Narain Singh, PW 2 who are Dy. Superintendent (Anti-Corruption) Cell and Inspector respectively. It will not be too much to say that being the members of Raiding Party, both of them were interested in the success of the trap and as such their evidence has to be viewed as interested witnesses and implicit reliance cannot be place on their evidence without independent corroboration which is wanting in this case. However, it cannot be held that the evidence of a trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. It can very well be relied upon and acted upon for the conviction of the appellant but after due care and caution. Every case has its own merits on facts and circumstances of the case. In a particular situation, the evidence of a trap-witnesses does not warrant any independent corroboration where the complainant had no previous enmity with the accused from before the occurrence but in a case like the present one where independent witnesses were present with the raiding party at the time of trap and who had also witnessed the search yielding the bribe money were not produced by the prosecution, it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of trap witnesses. As stated supra, the evidence of the complainant who had previous enmity with the accused cannot be relied upon merely seeking corroboration from the evidence of police witnesses who were undoubtedly interested in the success of the trap. In this case, the public witness, e.g. Sidharth Pandey and Ganesh Singh were withheld by the prosecution as they were not examined by the prosecution in support of the case. No plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution for their non-production in the Court. Likewise, Dr. Naseer Ahmad Siddiqui in whose medical store and in whose presence the alleged recovery of currency notes was made, had filed an application supported with an affidavit before the trial Court averring that no such recovery was made from the Sub Inspector by the Police in his medical store. The non-production of Dr. Naseer Ahmad Siddiqui in support of the prosecution case has also weakened the edifice of the prosecution case to a considerable extent.
13. Upon a consideration of the circumstances discussed above, the evidence of Chadrama Prasad, V. K. Bajpai and Satya Narayan Singh, cannot be accepted for basing the conviction of the appellant in this case in view of their being highly inimical and interested. The cloud of suspicion overhangs the prosecution case so far as the recovery of currency notes from the person of the appellant is concerned which is alleged to have been made inside the Janta Medical Store itself in the presence of independent witnesses and the said independent witnesses have not come forward to lend support to the prosecution case. The non-production of disinterested and independent witnesses which were shown by the prosecution to have witnessed the arrest and recovery from the appellant, leave recurring doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. I, therefore hold that the prosecution evidence upon a conspectus, does not inspire confidence and it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant as a matter of abundant caution. The appellant deserves to be acquitted.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
