1. Impugned is the judgment dated 05.05.2001 passed by Learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption Kashmir whereunder appellant has been convicted and sentenced to one years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for commission of offence punishable under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 and one year simple/imprisonment under section 161 RPC. In default of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In case fine is paid Rs. 42,000/-, shall be payable to Lal Din, and his co-sharers whereas Rs. 8000/- shall go to State Treasury. 2. Basically land had been acquired at and around Village Kangan in connection with construction of Upper Sindh Hydle Project which included 23 kanals of agricultural land situated at Buranbug Tehsil Kangan belonging to Mehda Mir S/o Gani Mir, Samad Shah son-in-law of Lass a Sheikh, Lal Din S/o Channa Jugal, Ahsan Mir S/o Qadir Mir, Ghulam Qadir Bhat S/o Wahab Bhat and Sona Mir S/o Qadir Mir. The `soil of the said land in the revenue records is recorded as `Labroo when in fact on spot it is `Maidani. The rate fixed by authorities concerned is Rs.6000/- per kanal for land `Labroo and Rs. 9,000/- per kanal for land `Maidani. Faced with this situation, owners of the land, instead of directly having recourse to remedial measures vis-a-vis change in the soil of the land, seem to have started searching the ways and in the process contacted Patwari of the concerned Halqa who in turn advised them to contact the Tehsildar who at the relevant time was accused. Then the owners of the land have contacted one Abdul Gaffar Wani, Sarpanch Panchayat Halqa, Kangan who in turn took up the matter with the accused (Tehsildar), then informed the owners of the land that Tehsildar has agreed to change the entries vis-a-vis soil provided 50% of the enhanced compensation as they may get is paid to him. The owners of the land informed Abdul Gaffar Wani to take pity on them. Finally, Abdul Gaffar Wani, informed them that Tehsildar concerned has agreed to receive Rs. 1,000/- per kanal. 3. The owners had certain financial constrains perhaps so as to pay Rs. 22,000/- therefore, asked one of the owner, Shri Lal Din Gojjar and his co-sharers, whose other patch of land had also been acquired and compensation awarded to be received. Finally, Abdul Gaffar Wani, informed them that Tehsildar concerned has agreed to receive Rs. 1,000/- per kanal. 3. The owners had certain financial constrains perhaps so as to pay Rs. 22,000/- therefore, asked one of the owner, Shri Lal Din Gojjar and his co-sharers, whose other patch of land had also been acquired and compensation awarded to be received. Lal Din Gojjar agreed to pay the amount on behalf of all. In the process, he is said to have authorized Abdul Gaffar Wani to collect the compensation amount of Rs. 27,000/- from the Collector Land Acquisition. 4. Abdul Gaffar Wani is said to have collected the compensation amount, out of which is said to have paid Rs. 22,000/- to the accused and the remaining Rs. 5,000/- to Lal Din Gojjar. With the change of Government, Tehsildar (accused) was under the orders of transfer; the owners are alleged to have asked for the return of the amount. Finally the owners of the land filed an application before the Honble Chief Minister on 21.06.1985 which was endorsed to Director General, Vigilance. After preliminary enquiry case was registered as FIR No. 31 of 1985 in P/S VOK. 5. Finally trial of the case culminated in conviction of the accused. 6. Appearing counsel for the appellants at the very outset contended that the trial court has mis-appreciated the evidence. Case is full of embellishment, concoction and is shrouded in mystery. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellant the prosecution theory vis-a-vis bribe amount is full of suspicion. The submission, on scrutiny of record is found with substance for the reasons to follow: - (a) PW, Abdul Gaffar Wani was the mediator and it is he who had settled the deal and it is he who had stated that the accused had demanded the money and it is he who has paid the amount of Rs. 22,000/- to the accused. According to PW Madha Mir, Rs. 21,000/- were paid by PW, Abdul Gaffar Wani to the accused at the residence in presence of the witnesses namely, Samad Shah, Sona Mir, Munawar Mir and the witnesses, whereas according to PW Sona Mir, Abdul Gaffar Wani wrapped Rs. 22,000/- in a paper for being paid to Tehsilder and same was paid to Tehsilder in his office in presence of PWs Mohda Mir, Samad Shah, Lal Joo, Ahsan Mir. Similarly, according to PW Ashan Mir, Rs. 22,000/- in a paper for being paid to Tehsilder and same was paid to Tehsilder in his office in presence of PWs Mohda Mir, Samad Shah, Lal Joo, Ahsan Mir. Similarly, according to PW Ashan Mir, Rs. 22,000/- were paid to Tehsildar when according to PW Samad Shah, Rs. 21,000/-were paid to the accused in presence of Lal Din, Mahda Mir, Gh. Qadir Bhat and Sona Mir. According to PW Lal Din, Rs. 22,000/- were paid by the Abdul Gaffar Wani to Tehsildar. Who among these witnesses is to be believed, if all of them were present at the time of payment then why such a discrepancy, some says Rs. 21,000/- were paid and some says Rs. 22,000/-were pald. This discrepancy can not be termed to be minor,either they were not present or payment is not made in their presence that is the only inference which can be drawn. (b) According to PW, Mahda Mir, payment was made in presence of Samad Shah, Munawar Mir and according to PW Gh. Qadir Bhat payment was made in presence of Munawar Mir, Samad Shah, Ahsan Mir and Lal Din whereas PW Samad Shah had stated that amount was paid to Tehsildar in his presence and in presence of two witnesses so PW Mahda Mir has not named Lal Din, Ahsan Mir and Gh. Qadir so again a discrepancy which cannot be ignored. It makes the presence of the witnesses doubtful at the time of payment. (c) The position of witnesses having been present at the time of payment to the Tehsildar is further fully exposed by PW Mohammad Syed (Investigation Officer) as he has deposed that it is Gaffar Wani who stated to have paid the amount to the accused, no other witness stated that the amount was paid in his presence. He has further clarified by stating that if any witness has claimed to have been present at the time of payment of bribe money, same is not correct as per the investigation conducted by him. (d) PW Gaffar Wani, as per prosecution theory, is said to have collected the compensation amount of Rs. 27,000/- as was payable to Lal Din and his co-sharers but no such letter of authority has been produced or proved. (d) PW Gaffar Wani, as per prosecution theory, is said to have collected the compensation amount of Rs. 27,000/- as was payable to Lal Din and his co-sharers but no such letter of authority has been produced or proved. Same position is fully supported by Investigating Officer, PW, Mohammad Syed by stating that according to his investigation, Lal Din has not given any written authority to Gaffar Wani for collection of money and even Collector, while making payment of compensation to Lal Din, had not mentioned that such payment was made through Gaffar Wani, however, has added that Lal Din has made request before the Collector that the bill be handed over to PW Gaffar Wani, again a question mark as to how Gaffar Wani has claimed ` to have collected compensation amount of Rs. 27,000/- from Collectors Office. The position is more exposed by PW Hakim Gh. Hassan who has stated that EX PW HGH at Col.6 serial 36 page 15 of the A.C. Roll pertains to Lal Din, Allah Din, Haleema and Abdul Kakrim sons of Chashoo whereunder for land measuring 5 kanals and 3 marlas compensation amount of Rs. 39,890/- was assessed. Similarly, according to PW Inderjeet Singh, Revenue Deposit Bill to M/s Lal Din and others was issued through Abdul Gaffar Wani and entries in AC Roll do not show that R.D Bill to have been paid through Abdul Gaffar Warn. As per rules payments due to a person could not be paid through any other person, neither there was any written application submitted by Lal Din in this behalf nor any order of the Collector for making the payment through Ab. Gaffar Wani. This gives rise to the concoction and does not inspire confidence. (e) According to PW Mahda Mir, out of the compensation amount of Rs. 27,000/-, Rs. 21,000/- were paid to the accused whereas Rs. 5,000/- were paid back to Lal Din and Rs. 1000/- was taken on loan by Samad Shah. Whereas, accordingly to Sona Mir, Rs. 22,000/-were paid to Tehsildar and Rs. 5,000/- were paid to Lal Din on his shop by Abdul Gaffar Wani. According to PW Gh. Qadir, Gaffar Wani paid Rs. 22,000/- to Tehsildar and Rs. 5000/- were paid back to Lal Din in two installments. Lal Din has also stated that Gaffar Wani paid Rs. 22,000/- to Tehsildar and Rs. 22,000/-were paid to Tehsildar and Rs. 5,000/- were paid to Lal Din on his shop by Abdul Gaffar Wani. According to PW Gh. Qadir, Gaffar Wani paid Rs. 22,000/- to Tehsildar and Rs. 5000/- were paid back to Lal Din in two installments. Lal Din has also stated that Gaffar Wani paid Rs. 22,000/- to Tehsildar and Rs. 5000/- were paid to him in two installments. Admittedly the amount of Rs. 27,000/- was of Lal Din and his co-sharers but Abdul Gaffar Wani claim to have collected the said amount from the Collectors Office. These circumstances give rise to the concoction and do not inspire confidence. (f) According to PW Mahda Mir 50% of the enhanced amount was demanded by the Tehsildar as was said by Ab. Gaffar Wani then Rs. 1000/- per kanal was settled. According to PW Gh. Qadir 50% was demanded but finally deal was settled at l/3rd as was said by Ab. Gaffar Wani. 8. What emerges from the aforesaid circumstances is that accomplice Abdul Gaffar Wani has played a tricky role as it is he who has made all conversation with the Tehsildar, how far he has stated the truth is questionable and required corroboration. 9. Another circumstance which appears is that the land owners themselves have not come up with real truth. According to PW Mahda Mir rate fixed per kanal for the land soil of which is recorded as `Labroo, `Maidani and `Abi was Rs. 4600/- Rs. 10,500 and 14,500/- respectively. Same position is also stated by PW Sona Mir when according to rest of the witnesses, rate fixed was Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 9,000/- respectively for the land `Labroo and `Abi Sayum 10. Another interesting circumstance which emerged from the records is that the land measuring 23 kanals belonged to the land owners, if the prosecution theory of the payment of Rs. 1,000/- per kanal payable to the accused is acceptable then Rs. 23,000/- should have been paid. Some says Rs. 21,000/-were paid and some says Rs. 22,000/- were paid whereas Investigating Officer, Mohammed Syed has stated that the payment has not been made in presence of any witness. 11. The discrepancy and contradiction as noticed hereinabove by any standard cannot be termed to be minor in nature. As per EXPW AG Rs. 23,000/- should have been paid. Some says Rs. 21,000/-were paid and some says Rs. 22,000/- were paid whereas Investigating Officer, Mohammed Syed has stated that the payment has not been made in presence of any witness. 11. The discrepancy and contradiction as noticed hereinabove by any standard cannot be termed to be minor in nature. As per EXPW AG Rs. 27,000/- are shown to have been received by Lal Din and others, not by Abdul Gaffar Wani which version is to be accepted. 12. Learned Trial court while appreciating the evidence and while referring to the law as has been laid down has concluded that the discrepancies are of minor nature, therefore, has convicted the accused but neither evidence has been appreciated properly nor law has been applied correctly. 13. It is to be borne in the mind that law has to be applied according to the facts and features of a particular case, in this view, I am fortified by the Judgment reported in 1974(3) SCC 277 wherein it has been laid down: "Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts." It is quite relevant to quote para 23 of the aforesaid judgment: "A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to ones imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-fade trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 14. Contradictions shall be material for discarding the evidence. In the instant case, the contradictions as noticed above vis-a-vis payment of bribe are so material which has shaken the prosecution theory and credibility of the evidence is totally exposed. 15. 14. Contradictions shall be material for discarding the evidence. In the instant case, the contradictions as noticed above vis-a-vis payment of bribe are so material which has shaken the prosecution theory and credibility of the evidence is totally exposed. 15. It is quite apt to quote Para - 9 of the judgment reported in JT 1999 (8) SC 274 wherein it has been held: "Contradictions unless material shall not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety". 16. Demand, payment and acceptance of bribe is wholly known to the PW Ab. Gaffar Wani whose role has been that of accomplice. An accomplice is competent to give evidence but it is unsafe to convict a person on his sole testimony. In this view, I am fortified by the Judgment reported in AIR 1963 SC 599. 17. The observation made by Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1952 Cri. L.J 561 is reproduced as under: - "There is at one end the unblushing giver, who pays the bribe and gets an advantage, and subsequently gives evidence for some ulterior purpose. He is an accomplice of the darkest kind. At the other extreme is the person who, from the very beginning has no intention of giving a bribe, but makes a show of doing it, so as to bring the dishonest public servant to book; such a man far from being an accomplice is a good citizen, to be respected and encouraged. Between the two, there are many gradations of accomplice-hood, and consequent legal infamy, and need for more or less corroboration. There is the giver, who goes halfway with the intention of paying, but for some reasons beyond his control thinks it wise or safe to report to the authorities and become a witness. He is only a less infamous accomplice then the extreme type. Another who changed his mind without external pressure, is still technically an accomplice, but not as unreliable as the two other types. Then there is the decoy or the spy, who without intention to pay the bribe, makes himself the instrument of the authorities in tracking the dishonest public servant. The professional spy or decoy, doing this for pecuniary or other advantages though not an accomplice is suspect all the same and required corroboration. Then there is the decoy or the spy, who without intention to pay the bribe, makes himself the instrument of the authorities in tracking the dishonest public servant. The professional spy or decoy, doing this for pecuniary or other advantages though not an accomplice is suspect all the same and required corroboration. If on the other hand, the decoy is not acting for gain, but being himself a victim of the demand helps the authorities spontaneously from a sense of citizens duty, he is reliable and responsible witness" 18. In the instant case, role of Ab. Gaffar Wani, Surpanch is quite dubious so his testimony cannot be acted upon in absence of proper corroboration. It is Abdul Gaffar Wani who has acted as a mediator, alone knows about demand, acceptance and also payment as allegedly made through him. Evidence led in my opinion is insufficient so as to record or sustain the conviction. In support of this opinion, it is quite relevant to quote para 7 of the judgment titled Shanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1976 (1) SCC 577, wherein it has been held: "We are, therefore, of the view that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant made a demand for bribe through Ram Narain or accepted any bribe from Dhanna Lal for giving early certified copy of the entries in the Land Record. We must, consequently, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and acquits him of the offences charged against him. The bail bonds executed by the appellant will stand cancelled." 19. One more circumstance which exposes the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is that according to PW Gh. Qadir, Collector had also demanded Rs. 44,000/- for accepting the recommendation of Tehsildar (accused) vis-a-vis change in type of soil. Finally, Rs. 10,000/- has been settled to be paid. According to PW, Ahsan Mir, Collector has demanded Rs. 10,000/- whereas rest of the witnesses stated that Collector had also demanded money. Who is to be believed, if it was so why this aspect has not been investigated. It can be termed as an improvement so further exposes the credibility of the witnesses. 20. Corruption no doubt is an evil, has got to be eradicated for achieving that end, corrupt people are to be dealt with iron hand. Who is to be believed, if it was so why this aspect has not been investigated. It can be termed as an improvement so further exposes the credibility of the witnesses. 20. Corruption no doubt is an evil, has got to be eradicated for achieving that end, corrupt people are to be dealt with iron hand. Court cannot afford to be swayed so as to record conviction. There must be solid base and the credibility of the witnesses must inspire confidence, with the conviction of the accused, not only the accused but whole family gets devastated. For that devastation solid proof is imperative. It is true that land owners are illiterate villagers, discrepancy and contradiction here and there is expected which is to be over looked but in the instant case, the contradiction and discrepancy relates to the basic ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and actual payment then actual amount, which can not be over looked as the same goes to root of the case and has material bearing on the result of the trial. 21. Learned trial court has taken pains but the judgment is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Law cited has not been properly applied in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The evidence in my opinion is fragile and doubtful does not inspire confidence for upholding conviction and sentence under challenge. 22. The demand, payment, quantum of payment and acceptance in the given scenario of the case is shrouded in mystery. Doubtful position is not confidence inspiring, therefore, conviction recorded sentence passed is not sustainable, hence set aside, accused, as such, acquitted. Appeal accordingly succeeds. Copy of the judgment alongwith subordinate record be sent to the trial court.