Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. PW.6 Renuka Prasad is Investigating Officer in this case. He has stated about registering of complaint in Cr.No.52/2012 and securing PWs 1 and 3 and has stated about other activities of the pre-trap and also stated about pre-trap mahazar and instructions given to complainant and stated that PW.3 was asked to accompany the complainant as shadow witness. He has stated that conversation recorded in the voice recorder was transmitted to CD and CD was seized and has given digital voice recorder to the complainant with instructions to switch on the same while meeting the accused. PW6 has also stated that after pre-trap proceedings they left Lokayukta office and reached DCP office at 2.40 p.m. and vehicles were parked at a distance and after reminding the instructions, PWs 2 and 3 were sent to the office of DCP and others waited for the signal. PW6 has stated that at 3.40 p.m. PW2 came out and flashed signal and they all went inside DCP office and PW2 took them to chamber of accused No.1, wherein accused Nos.1 and 2 were sitting. He has stated that PW2 informed that accused No.1 has received tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter he disclosed his identity and ascertained the details of accused Nos.1 and 2 and complainant informed about the happenings and he asked accused No.1 to call accused No.3 and then accused No.3 also came there. He has also stated about hand wash of accused No.1 and stated that left hand wash changed to light pink colour and right hand wash has not changed the colour. PW.6 has also stated about recovery of tainted notes from table of accused No.1 and also stated about following of other procedures of trap and also about wiping the place where tainted notes were found by cotton piece and seizing of cotton piece, Sudha and Indian Express. PW6 has also stated about recording of statement of witnesses and also identification of voice of accused recorded in the conversation by PW5. He has also stated about further investigation done by him and about filing charge sheet after investigation and after obtaining prosecution sanction order. In the cross- examination, PW6 has stated that he has enquired the complainant as to when he has given application for arrears and has stated that he has collected the copy of application given by the complainant which is part of Ex.P.6. He has stated that he has not seized the original devise like digital voice recorder in which the complainant has recorded the conversation and he has not taken sample voice of accused Nos.1 and 2. He has stated that he has not sent the alleged conversation to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the voice of accused Nos.1 and 2 and admitted that at the time of trap, complainant alone had gone inside the chamber of accused No.1 and shadow witness was sitting outside. He has denied that when accused No.1 was talking with three other strangers, PW2, without the knowledge of accused No.1, kept the amount under the magazine on the table. He has denied that he asked accused No.1 to take out the amount from the magazine and after he taking out the amount, his hand wash was made. He has stated that he has not produced certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the CD's and transcriptions. In his cross-examination for accused No.3, PW.6 admitted that in Ex.P4 transcription, there is no direct demand of amount by accused No.3. He has admitted that in the recordings in button camera, accused No.3 is not seen. He has also admitted that when he entered the chamber of accused No.1, accused No.3 was not there and he was sitting in a separate chamber from which he was secured. He has admitted that before PW.4 identifying the voice, he was not knowing which voice was of which accused in the recordings.

22. As per prosecution case, when complainant met accused persons with request to prepare his arrears bill for the period of suspension, they have demanded bribe from complainant. In Ex.P.12, it is stated that accused demanded Rs.8,000/- and complainant paid Rs.4500/- and thereafter accused have contacted him by phone and asked him to pay bribe again for preparing the bill for suspension arrears by stating that amount already paid is in respect of medical leave. In Ex.P.12, it is also mentioned that on 15.06.2012 accused have again demanded Rs.10,000/- and then brought it down to Rs.5,000/- and thereafter complaint is given. In respect of alleged demand and payment of some amount by complainant to accused persons prior to 15.06.2012, there is no such evidence before the court. In respect of demand of bribe on 15.06.2012, it is stated that the conversation with accused is recorded and complainant has produced digital voice recorder along with complaint. PW.2 complainant in his evidence has also stated about the demand of bribe amount by accused persons prior to giving of complaint. The voice recorder alleged to have been produced by complainant is not seized in this case. PW.6 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he has not seized the original devise i.e. digital voice recorder in which complainant has recorded the conversation. In Ex.P.2 pre-trap mahazar, it is mentioned that complainant has produced the digital voice recorder and it was played through computer and the conversation has been transcribed and the conversation has been transmitted to CD and CD has been seized as Article No.1. However, PW2 has admitted that he has not given any mobile or chip in the mobile containing the conversation with accused, but has produced the CD. The transcription of the conversation is also produced and marked as Ex.P.4. The CD article No.1 is marked as MO8 in the evidence of PW6. Therefore, as per the pre-trap mahazar, the voice recorder was played before the panchas through computer and the conversation recorded there is transmitted to CD as per MO.8 and the transcription is also produced at Ex.P.4 and it contains the conversation in which bribe is said to have been demanded by accused Nos.1 to 3. However, in cross- examination of PW6 for accused No.3 witness has clearly admitted that in the transcriptions at Ex.P4 there is no specific demand for bribe made by accused No.3. Even with regard to other accused as admitted by PW6, original voice recorder is not seized. Even at the time of trap, there was conversation between complainant and accused which is said to have been recorded in button camera and in digital voice recorder and these recordings were transmitted to CD and CD is seized as article No.10 as mentioned in Ex.P.3 trap mahazar and is produced as MO-10. The transcription is marked as Ex.P.5. Even there are other two CDs containing recording of pre-trap and trap proceedings which are marked as MOs.9 and 11.