Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. All the four material witnesses of the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case. Their veracity could not be impeached in their lengthy cross- examination. On the other hand, these witnesses had no enmity with the accused and had no motive to implicate him in a false case or to depose falsely against him. Even the shadow witness and the complainant had no motive to do so notwithstanding litigation regarding Panchayat land between Panchayat and Sardara Singh etc. because the shadow witness and the complainant could have no personal interest or personal axe to grind in the said litigation regarding land of Panchayat. Moreover, Nirmal Singh ETO and Sarup Singh DSP would not have acted at the instance of the complainant and the shadow witness to implicate the accused in a false case. Statements of the complainant and the shadow witness are sufficient to prove demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused. Even the shadow witness Bir Singh PW1 has stated that at the time of trap, the accused asked the complainant if he had brought the bribe amount and the complainant answered in the affirmative and then the complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused. This statement by Bir Singh is sufficient to depict the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused from the complainant. Similar statement has also been made by the complainant himself who has also stated specifically about the demand at the time of trap and also a day prior to it. Statements of these two witnesses are further corroborated by recovery of the tainted currency notes from the pocket of shirt of the accused immediately after the amount was paid to the accused by the complainant. The accused was caught at the spot. All the four material prosecution witnesses have stated about recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. Their statements in this regard are also corroborated by hand wash and pocket wash of the shirt of the accused. The fact that the pocket of the shirt did not have pinkish mark and the nip of hand wash solution was empty without having pinkish shade when produced in court during trial would not create any doubt about the prosecution case because Sarup Singh PW4 in whose statement the aforesaid facts have come, appeared in the witness box on 7.1.2003 i.e. about 1 year and 10 months after the occurrence. During this long period, the pinkish colour could have faded away particularly when the solution of hand wash evaporated from the nip. On the other hand, report of Forensic Science Laboratory produced in evidence proves that there were sodium ions, carbonate ions and phenolphthalein in both solutions of hand wash and pocket wash of the shirt of the accused. All this evidence strengthens the prosecution case.