Judgment 1. These Criminal Appeal are filed against the judgement dated 23.5.2008 made in SC.No.9/2008 by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, thereby convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 201 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the Prosecution is that during December 2000 and January 2001, the Appellant/A1 was working as Forester and the Appellant/A2 was working as Forest Guard at the Forest Range Office, Chengalpattu and at that time, within the jurisdiction of Thirumani Reserve Forest, two eucalyptus logs, standing on the reserve forest were cut down by one Yesudaiyan PW.2 of Selvi Nagar and in that connection, A1 demanded Rs.1000 as illegal gratification from PW.2 for not prosecuting him. On the written complaint of PW.2, alleging that the Appellant/A1 demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- as bribe and accepted the same through the Appellant/A2, who was present by his side, for not taking any action against an individual for the eucalyptus poles found in his house, a case in Cr.No.1/AC/2001/KM under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 9.1.2001 between 12.30 p.m and 12.45 p.m. A trap was organised on 9.1.2001, after observing the required formalities and the Appellant/A1 was caught red handed, when he demanded and accepted the bribe amount through the Appellant/A2 from the complainant on 9.1.2001 between 5.45 p.m and 5.55 p.m. at his house. Therefore, the Appellants/A1 and A2 were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 201 of IPC. 3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.9/2008 by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and necessary charges were framed. Therefore, the Appellants/A1 and A2 were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 201 of IPC. 3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.9/2008 by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and necessary charges were framed. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.13 and also marked Exs.P1 to P23 and Mos.1 and 2. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in these Criminal Appeals. 4. Mr. S. Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 and Mr. R. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the Appellant/A2, among other grounds urged in the grounds of appeal, relied on the following grounds in attacking the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence:- (a) The evidence of PW.1, who is the author of the complaint, demolishes the whole fabric of the Prosecution case, as he has not supported the case of the Prosecution specifically that the accused never demanded the bribe nor that they received any amount as bribe from him. In fact, his evidence is to the effect that PW.6, Krishnan, Forest Guard of Nemmeli Reserve Forest from where the eucalyptus trees were cut, only demanded money from him and threatened him that a case would be filed against him if he failed to meet out the demand. The learned counsel for the Appellant/A2 contended that the Prosecution case, as set out in the First Information Report Ex.P22, has been changed altogether in the evidence of the complainant, thus abandoning the case initially taken against the accused persons. There is no corroboration from the shadow witness PW.3, inasmuch as his evidence is contradictory and unbelievable. The learned counsel for the Appellant/A2 contended that the Prosecution case, as set out in the First Information Report Ex.P22, has been changed altogether in the evidence of the complainant, thus abandoning the case initially taken against the accused persons. There is no corroboration from the shadow witness PW.3, inasmuch as his evidence is contradictory and unbelievable. PW.3 has stated that he identified the Appellant/A2 only at the Vigilance Office, Kancheepuram, that is seven months after the incident. It is pointed out that his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC was recorded on the next day i.e. on 10.1.2001 and no further statement was recorded after the alleged identification at the Police Station. PW.12, Jayabalan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell has not identified the Appellant/A2 during the investigation and unless there is a positive evidence regarding identification of the 2nd accused, the question of receipt of money by this accused, cannot be accepted. 5. Mr. S. Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 contended that the main star witness, namely, PW.2 completely changed the Prosecution case and he was duly confronted with his statement recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW.12). The learned counsel, pointing out to various contradictions and infirmities, contended that it will not be proper and safe to rely on the evidence of the main witness of the Prosecution. The learned counsel submitted that even regarding the scene of occurrence, there is no consistent evidence, inasmuch as the evidence of PW.3 indicated that the incident took place at the forest office, Chingleput, whereas, according to PW.2, the whole incident took place at the residence/quarters of A1. The learned counsel contended that when the evidence produced by the Prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. 6. On the other hand, Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, the learned counsel Additional Public Prosecutor contended that pursuant to the complaint given by PW.2, PW.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, a responsible Officer laid the trap and PW.3 shadow witness had spoken to the receipt of money by A2. The other clinching circumstances in this case clearly established the guilt and complicity of the Appellants and that PW.2 turned hostile because he was made to oblige for the Appellants and therefore, his evidence before the court cannot render the whole Prosecution case as false. The other clinching circumstances in this case clearly established the guilt and complicity of the Appellants and that PW.2 turned hostile because he was made to oblige for the Appellants and therefore, his evidence before the court cannot render the whole Prosecution case as false. Thus, he supported the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the court below. 7. I have heard the rival contentions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgement and materials placed on record. 8. From the oral evidence adduced through PW.1 to PW.13 coupled with the documentary evidence as extracted by the learned trial judge, it is seen that A1 Subramaniam was working as a Forester at Chingalput Forest Office and A2 Anbu was a Watcher at Vallam Reserved Forest area in Chingleput circle. The case of the Prosecution is that the 1st accused went to the house of PW.2 Yesudaiyan at Selvi Nagar, Ozhalur on 27.12.2000, along with two watchers, who were looking after Nemmeli forest area, from where the eucalyptus trees were cut and thereafter, the 1st accused went twice or thrice to the house of PW.2 and demanded Rs.2000/- for the unlawful possession of two eucalyptus logs MO.1(series). Again on 9.1.2001, the 1st accused demanded Rs.2000/- from PW.2 not to register a case and thereafter reduced the amount to Rs.1000/- and directed that it should be paid at 5.00 p.m. on 9.1.2001 itself at his office at Chingleput. 9. The Prosecution case rests upon the star witness PW.2 Yesudaiyan, PW.3 Madanagopal, shadow witness, PW.12, Jayapalan, Trap Laying Officer and PW.13 Malaisamy, Investigating Officer. It is appropriate that the evidence of the above Prosecution witnesses, regarding the major aspects of the Prosecution case, should be considered, at the outset. PW.2 Yesudaiyan has not supported the Prosecution case totally. He also denied of having given the complaint. He admitted his signature in the complaint and it was marked as Ex.P2. The complaint allegedly given by PW.2 was marked only through PW.12. 10. It is seen that PW.2 was the star witness, who is said to have lodged the complaint to the police, whereupon the whole process of the trap by the vigilance police, had been schemed out and carried on. PW.2 the author of the complaint Ex.P22 did not support the Prosecution nor the trap of the overt-act by the Appellants. 10. It is seen that PW.2 was the star witness, who is said to have lodged the complaint to the police, whereupon the whole process of the trap by the vigilance police, had been schemed out and carried on. PW.2 the author of the complaint Ex.P22 did not support the Prosecution nor the trap of the overt-act by the Appellants. Moreover, his evidence is that only PW.6 Krishnan, Forest Guard of Nemmeli Reserve Forest from where the eucalyptus trees were cut, demanded money and PW.2 also wanted to give a complaint against PW.6 Krishnan. When PW.6 was in the box, the Prosecution has not chosen to put any question about this aspect through PW.6 to nullify the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the evidence given by PW.2 did not project the demand of bribe by the accused nor passing of bribe money to the 2nd accused. It is, thus, seen that the very evidence of PW.2, who set the law into motion for laying the trap against the Appellant, is totally missing in establishing the complicity and overtact of the Appellants for the offences alleged against them. In this context, I may mention that the learned trial judge has totally mistaken the contents of Ex.P22 into the realm of complicity of the Appellants/accused, which is not correct, in my view, for the reason that the complainant not only disowned the complaint, but projected a new case that PW.6 Krishnan demanded bribe from him. There is no corroboration either for the initial demand or any evidence of the demand at all on subsequent dates. The contradictions are material and substantial contradictions in the statement of main witness of the Prosecution i.e. the complainant PW.2 Yesudaiyan. It is quite evident that PW.2 had taken absolutely a new case in the witness box and abandoned the allegations made in the First Information Report and in the statement recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). Under such circumstances, it will not be proper and safe to rely on the evidence of the main star witness of the Prosecution, namely, PW.2 Yesudaiyan. 11. The other remaining witness to speak about the passing of money is PW.3, Madanagopal. Under such circumstances, it will not be proper and safe to rely on the evidence of the main star witness of the Prosecution, namely, PW.2 Yesudaiyan. 11. The other remaining witness to speak about the passing of money is PW.3, Madanagopal. Granting that decoy or shadow witness may, to an extent, be considered to be interested, inasmuch as they may be inclined to see that their trap succeeds in the final analysis, however, the necessity of corroboration of evidence from its very nature depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including, inter alia the status and calibre of the witness and the quantity of their testimony. 12. In this case, there are material contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution in regard to the place of incident. According to PW.3, the raiding party led by PW.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded from Kancheepuram to the Forest Office at Chingleput. Whereas PW.2's evidence indicated that the whole incident took place at the residential quarters of A1. PW.12 Trap Laying Officer had stated that the raiding party went to the Forest Office at Chingleput and his evidence clearly indicated that post trap mahazar Ex.P7 was prepared only in the forest office. In chief examination, he had stated as extracted below:- (“Tamil”) 13. Contrary to the above statement made by PW.12 in his evidence, Ex.P7 mahazar indicates that the entire incident occurred at the residential quarters of A1 and the plan prepared also shows the details of the rooms inside the house of the Appellant/A1. This material contradiction cannot be regarded as a trivial or insignificant discrepancy. It is a significant departure made by PW.12 Trap Laying Officer himself and it leaves an indelible infirmity on the evidence led on behalf of the Prosecution. It is tittle too difficult to understand as to why on such vital aspects of the Prosecution, the Trap Laying Officer himself has given such an inconsistent version. In the instant case, the foundation of the Prosecution case of the demand made by the accused for bribe has, as observed already, been shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe should be considered along with the above material circumstances. It casts a grave doubt on the subsequent event that was alleged to have taken place. The question as to the handing over of any bribe should be considered along with the above material circumstances. It casts a grave doubt on the subsequent event that was alleged to have taken place. A scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.12 reveals that their version is nothing but a conglomeration of contradictions. It is the case of the Prosecution that A2 had received money and placed in his pocket and on the signal given by A1 about the raiding party, A2 ran away. According to PW.12, he directed the Inspector of Police by name Vedarathinam and his police party to chase and apprehend, but they were not successful in their attempt. Admittedly, A2's name was not mentioned by PW.2 nor in the earlier records Ex.P22 complaint and Ex.P23 First Information Report and also in pre trap mahazar Ex.P6. None of the police officials, who made an attempt to apprehend the recipient of bribe when he ran away, were examined. The Prosecution is not supposed to examine each witness cited, but a material witness who is required to be examined, should be examined, especially when such witness is competent to state certain additional relevant facts. Then the non examination of such witness by the Prosecution makes the Prosecution case infirm. No money was recovered from A2 at any point of time. So no currency notes with specific serial numbers as found in Ex.P6 pre trap mahazar were produced. PW.3 would say in his evidence that on 21.8.2001, he identified the 2nd accused at the Vigilance Office, Kancheepuram, i.e. admittedly nearly 7 months after the incident. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/A2, no further statement of PW.3 has been recorded, after the identification of A2 by PW.3 and the said identification remains doubtful in view of the contradicting statement made by PW.13 that PW.3 identified A2 on 28.08.2007. That apart, the evidence discloses that only after preparation of mahazars Ex.P7, PW.12 had come to know about the name of A2, however in Ex.P7, his name is mentioned. The identification of A2 by PW.12 is also not acceptable, as admittedly, A2 is a stranger and PW.12 had seen him only for few seconds in the place of occurrence. Therefore, no reliance could be made on the testimony of PW.3 and PW.12, as regards his identification. 14. The identification of A2 by PW.12 is also not acceptable, as admittedly, A2 is a stranger and PW.12 had seen him only for few seconds in the place of occurrence. Therefore, no reliance could be made on the testimony of PW.3 and PW.12, as regards his identification. 14. The version of the Prosecution, as to demand and receipt of the bribe money, as narrated by the Prosecution witnesses, does not inspire any confidence. Serious doubts arise as to the manner in which bribe was demanded, offered and received, as also the place where the offer and receipt took place. Reliance in this aspect can be placed on the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of V.Venkata Subbarao Vs. State (AIR-2004-SC-1728), wherein it has been held that the presumption of demand and acceptance under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be raised, when the demand by the accused has not been proved. As already discussed above, the entire circumstances, under which the bribe is alleged to be accepted by the accused, are highly suspicious and as such, it is difficult to sustain the conviction on the basis of such dubious evidence. The entire trap proceedings being bristled with suspicious circumstances, doubts and improbabilities, this court has no hesitation to hold that the Prosecution has not discharged its burden to prove its case against the Appellants/A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the Appellants/A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the inevitable conclusion of the court is that the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is unsustainable. 16. In the result, these criminal appeals are allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bond, if any executed by them, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them.