JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. from the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2015 delivered in case No. Special (PC) 06 of 2013 by the Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 13(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 encompasses abuse of position by a public servant in order to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable things or pecuniary advantage. Based on the conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment. 2. The genesis of the prosecution for the said criminal misconduct is rooted in the complaint filed by one Jibesh Shyam Roy, a Sub-Inspector of Police who was posted at the relevant point of time in Kamalasagar Outpost under Bishalgarh Police Station. In the said written complaint, the informant disclosed that on 22.04.2013, he had been in Harihardola in connection with an investigation with the appellant [Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, ASI in short], Sri Ajit Sarkar [Constable] and Abul Hossain [Constable]. From the said suo motu complaint filed by the said Sub-Inspector of Police, it has surfaced that the informant on reaching the house of the victim girl, took her…..[the name of the victim withheld for purpose of protecting her identity] for identifying the place of occurrence for drawing hand sketch map etc. The informant-police officer asked the appellant to follow him to the place of occurrence [P.O] but the appellant informed him that huge quantity of dry cannabis [ganja] was stored under the mud floor of dwelling hut of Kalpana Das [the mother of the victim girl]. The appellant was insisting for digging the mud floor but as the informant was in a hurry to visit the place of occurrence of a heinous crime, he left that place directing the appellant to follow him, but he did not, rather he stayed at the residence of Kalpana Das with those constables. After the informant left the house of the victim girl, the appellant and the constables entered in the dwelling hut of Kalpana Das. At that time, Shibani Das [the married sister of the victim girl] and her son, Sanjit Das were present in the dwelling hut. After the informant left the house of the victim girl, the appellant and the constables entered in the dwelling hut of Kalpana Das. At that time, Shibani Das [the married sister of the victim girl] and her son, Sanjit Das were present in the dwelling hut. They searched even the ceiling of the dwelling hut ‘but failed to find anything in the dwelling hut’. The police personnel went out of the dwelling hut to the courtyard, but the appellant came back to Kalpana Das and told her that ‘the A/Ps arrested in c/w Bishalgarh P.S. case No.93/13 would get bail in the coming month. After the bail they would return to Harihardola and might create severe problems for the victim and her family members. ASI Sambika Paul asked Kalpana Das to pay him Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands) only so that he could help her out. He convinced her that if she gave him Rs.10,000/- he would see to that the arrested A/Ps did not get bail early. Kalpana Das, a helpless widow took money from her elder daughter, Shibani Das and gave Rs.9000/- to ASI Sambika Paul inside the dwelling hut. When the money was handed over to the officer, ASI Sambika Paul asked Kalpana Das not to divulge the real fact if I enquired in to it. In case of any queries she should tell that the she had handed over Rs.5,000/- only. I along with ASI Sambika Paul and staff took departure from Harihardola at about 1900 hrs on that day after investigation in BLG PS case No.93/13 U/S 376(g) IPC. On 23.04.13 I learnt from some source that ASI Sambika Paul had brought money from Kalpana Das. On enquiry, ASI Sambika Paul also admitted that he had taken money from Kalpana Das.” 3. Based on the said written complaint dated 19.07.2013 [Exbt.4], Bishalgarh P.S. case No.149/2013 under Section 448 of the IPC and under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and taken up for investigation. On completing the investigation, the final police report was filed in the court of the Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala who after taking cognizance framed the charge under Section 448 of the IPC & Sections 7/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge, pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. 4. On completing the investigation, the final police report was filed in the court of the Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala who after taking cognizance framed the charge under Section 448 of the IPC & Sections 7/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge, pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced 12 [twelve] witness including the complainant [PW2] and from the defence, one witness [DW-1] was adduced, but no documentary evidence was adduced. But the prosecution adduced as many as 10 [ten] documentary evidence including the sanction order [Exbt.10]. After recording the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant renewed his plea of innocence by denying the incriminating evidence as led by the prosecution as false and concocted. For the defence, the witness [PW-1] was examined in order to lead the evidence of alibi. Thereafter, on appreciating the evidence on record, the Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the impugned judgment returned the finding of conviction observing inter-alia: “To establish the charge under Section 13(1)and particularly clause (d)(ii) what is important is whether the accused took the money misusing the official position. It is not important whether ultimately he returned the money and whether the money was paid back to the victim. As regards the demand of money by the accused and taking of the money by him as already mentioned, the allegation is duly proved from the deposition of Pws.8, 9 and 10. Though Pws.4 and 5 turned hostile, from the deposition of PW2, an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector it is proved that the accused returned the money and seizure list proved also finds his signature. PW11 has deposed that he handed back the money to Kalpana Das on 03.05.2013. So, the question of producing the money at the time of trial does not come. As regards, the failure of the prosecution to prove the denomination and notes serial numbers, it is to be stated that in this case these are not of any importance because it is not a case of catching the accused red handed with the notes and proving that the notes belonged to the person who handed over the notes. The case is proved through the evidence of independent witnesses. When depositions of PWs. The case is proved through the evidence of independent witnesses. When depositions of PWs. 8 and 9 that they brought the money on loan from a person, could not be shaken in the cross examination, it is irrelevant that P.W.2 deposed that the person was their neighbours but PWS. 8 and 9 deposed that he stayed about 10 km away from their house.. Non examination of that person or any neighbour of Pws.8, 9 and 10 as a witness is also not fatal for the prosecution for the same reason.” [Emphasis added] 5. Mr. Amlan Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticized the mode of appreciation of the evidence. According to him, if the evidence of PWs-8, 9 & 10 is read, it would be apparent that those are mutually incongruous, contrary to be corroborative and therefore, there cannot be any reason to place reliance on their testimony. That apart, he has succinctly contended that the seizure has not been proved to be incriminating the appellant. The seizure has been made in the police station in the manner which itself shows the seizure was purposeless when it was caused but later, it was shaped to suit the purpose. But the witnesses of seizure had taken out of substance from it. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further emphasized that PWs-8,9 & 10 are closely related. If the evidence is read cumulatively, it would be apparent that not only the procedure of seizing the currencies from the appellant is fraught with procedural impropriety, but also the same is hit by serious illegality, inasmuch as PW-11 has stated that the appellant had received the money on 22.04.2013 in the evening and the appellant had ‘handed over’ the money to the seized officer. She had after making a preliminary inquiry of the said allegation submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala and to the Inspector General of Police, Law & Order. Those reports were filed on 24.04.2013 and 25.04.2013. On 03.05.2013, she handed over the said currencies to Kalpana Das [PW-8] in presence of witnesses. Kalpana Das issued the receipt [Exbt.1]. She has clearly stated in the cross-examination that after 3 months from the date of alleged occurrence, the FIR was lodged. Those reports were filed on 24.04.2013 and 25.04.2013. On 03.05.2013, she handed over the said currencies to Kalpana Das [PW-8] in presence of witnesses. Kalpana Das issued the receipt [Exbt.1]. She has clearly stated in the cross-examination that after 3 months from the date of alleged occurrence, the FIR was lodged. It is to be noted here that alleged occurrence, according to the written complaint took place on 22.04.2013 whereas the FIR was lodged on 18.07.2013. In this regard, PW- 11 [Sharmistha Chakraborty] has explained in the crossexamination that initially a departmental proceeding was started against the accused and he was suspended. No FIR was lodged for such a long period. Ultimately on the direction of the Director General of Police, the complaint was lodged. The statement that she made, as produced below, will have its consequence in the prosecution narrative: “Ultimately, on the direction of the Director General of Police, FIR was lodged. I visited the house of Kalpana Das twice before the FIR was lodged. The money was handed over to me by O/C Jibeshyam Roy through Malkhana Challan as it was not registered in the Malkhana. In the seizure list dated 24.04.2013 there is no case reference. The currency notes nos. are also not mentioned. So, it is also not mentioned whether the notes were Bangladeshi currency or Indian currency. It is also not mentioned therein in what connection the seizure was made. The particulars are also not there in the receipt obtained from Kalpana Das.” She had also stated in the cross-examination that no written permission was obtained from any authority before returning that money. That apart, she has clearly admitted that the reports that she filed on 24.04.2013 and 25.04.2013 have not been made part of the police papers. 6. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant having referred to the seizure list dated 24.04.2013 [Exbt.3] has submitted that the seizure list denotes merely that a sum of Rs.9,000/- was received from the appellant in presence of 2[two] witnesses namely, Prabir Ranjan Saha [PW-4] and Ajit Sarkar [PW-5]. Neither the currency number nor any other identifiable marks is recorded in the seizure list. Further, Mr. Neither the currency number nor any other identifiable marks is recorded in the seizure list. Further, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to the extract copy of the case diary [Exbt.9] to draw attention of this court that the said general diary entry being Kamalasagar outpost GDE No.428/2013 dated 24.04.2013 records an occurrence on 22.04.2013. In the entry, it has been recorded that the informant, Jibesh Shyam Roy came to know about the occurrence on 23.04.2013 from reliable ‘secret source’ that on 22.04.2013 while he was investigating Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.93/13 under Section 376(G) of the IPC, the appellant along with Ajit Sarkar and Abul Hossain entered the dwelling hut of Kalpana Das for searching the dry cannabis surfaced to have concealed in the floor of the hut. But after search they could not find any cannabis. Thereafter, it has been recorded that ‘the said ASI demanded Rs.10,000/- from Kalpana Das. He also assured that if she gave Rs.10,000/- he will not search for ganja again, he took Rs.9,000/- as gratification from Kalpana Das. When I learnt the matters I asked ASI Sambika Paul and he admitted that he had taken money from Kalpana Das. He returned Rs.9,000/- to me and asked me to forgive him.’ Though in the GD the offence was disclosed, but no case was registered. According to Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this clearly shows that subsequent written complaint was a design against the appellant. Further, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the informant [PW-2] has given a different statement that he came to know from one newspaper reporter, namely Ashis Miah that the appellant took Rs.9,000/- ‘from elder sister of the victim of rape’ saying that the cannabis was being stored in their house and further that unless the money was paid, the accused of the rape case would be released. Even he has asserted that Sharmistha Chakraborty, the SDPO [PW-11], and Kalpana Das, mother of the raped victim [PW-8] have stated that the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- on saying that otherwise the case would be weakened. Further, it has been stated that her elder daughter on mortgaging her golden chain obtained Rs.9,000/- from a neighbour and paid the amount to the appellant. Further, it has been stated that her elder daughter on mortgaging her golden chain obtained Rs.9,000/- from a neighbour and paid the amount to the appellant. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that he did not disclose in the written complaint that the money was returned to PW-8 by PW-11. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he did not mention in the written complaint or in his statement to the Investigating Officer that sum was seized in presence of SDPO[PW-11]. 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made reference finally to the statement of Shibani Das [PW-9], the elder daughter of PW-8 which she made during the cross-examination where it has been clearly stated as under: “I did not bring any money mortgaging my golden chain or that I did not have any golden chain. There was no documents regarding mortgaging of the golden chain.” 8. In reply, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that for some flaws here and there in the investigation, the court cannot throw out the entire prosecution case. On the contrary, a pragmatic approach be adopted to ensure justice. To buttress his contention, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has placed reliance on a few decisions viz. State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr., reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 , State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore, reported in (1996) 8 SCC 217 , Birendra Rai and Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 719 , State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master and Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 324 and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 5160 . 9. In Kalki (supra) it has been held by the apex court that even when there are discrepancies in the evidence of the related witness those cannot be discarded unceremoniously. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the apparent discrepancy in the testimonies of PWs-8 & 9 have to be appreciated in the context that the rustic witnesses can sometime make omission in such a manner that it appears to be contradiction. In the case in hand, there is no reason to disbelieve PWs-8 & 9 even though they are interested to see the offender is punished. In the case in hand, there is no reason to disbelieve PWs-8 & 9 even though they are interested to see the offender is punished. They are the natural witnesses in the crime scene and when no intention has been imputed on them that they had any interest other than of having justice, discrepancies which are not material cannot be given disproportionate sway as the material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. There is no material discrepancy in the testimonies of PWs-8 & 9. 10. In Kishore (supra) the apex court has observed as under: “18. It is equally true that the investigating officer PW.8 committed grave irregularity in omitting to send the burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination to lend corroboration to the evidence. Mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. It is seen from the Panchnama recovery of the incriminating material from the scene of offence that there was an attempt to screen the offence by destroying the evidence. Others were prevented from entering the room. That by itself indicates an attempt on the part of the accused to destroy the incriminating evidence and to prevent others from saving the life of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of smell of kerosene on the hair sent for chemical examination does not render the dying declaration of the deceased suspect nor would it become unbelievable. The High Court, therefore, has not considered the evidence in the proper and legal perspective but felt it doubtful like Doubting Thomas with vacillating mind to accept the prosecution case for invalid reasons and wrongly gave to the respondent the benefit of doubt.” 11. In Birendra Rai (supra) the apex court while dwelling upon the irregularity in the seizure, in the context of that case, had occasion to observe as follows: “12. Learned counsel also doubted the truthfulness of the prosecution case as regards the place of occurrence. It was submitted that if several shots were fired, some pellets would have been found at the place of occurrence. It is the case of the prosecution that no pellets were found. Learned counsel also doubted the truthfulness of the prosecution case as regards the place of occurrence. It was submitted that if several shots were fired, some pellets would have been found at the place of occurrence. It is the case of the prosecution that no pellets were found. For this reason alone we cannot discard the case of the prosecution. If pellets were found at the place of occurrence it would have further strengthened the case of the prosecution, but in the absence of such evidence one has to rely upon the ocular evidence which if found reliable, may be acted upon. Unfortunately, in this case, despite the efforts of the prosecution, the investigating officer could not be examined as a witness. The seizure witness has also been declared hostile. There is really no corroborative evidence, except the circumstantial evidence to corroborate the version given by the witnesses. However, we find the eye witnesses to be straight forward and reliable. Being rustic villagers, there is no effort on their part to improve the case of the prosecution on the basis of imaginary facts. They have deposed in a straight forward manner, and there is a right of truth in their testimony. We find them to be implicitly reliable.” 12. In Krishna Master (supra) the apex court while appreciating the evidence of one eye witness whose evidence was fraught with discrepancy in respect of the place from where he had witnessed the occurrence of murder has observed as under: “18. From the impugned judgment, it becomes evident that the High Court took into consideration the evidence tendered by PW1 Jhabbulal and PW2 Madan Lal. The High Court, at the very outset examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to five murders committed in the house of Guljari Lal and scanned the evidence of PW1, Jhabbulal. After noting that his house was undisputedly situated to the north of house of Guljari and that both the houses were separated by an intervening wall running East to West, the High Court analysed the evidence of PW1 Jhabbulal. After noting that his house was undisputedly situated to the north of house of Guljari and that both the houses were separated by an intervening wall running East to West, the High Court analysed the evidence of PW1 Jhabbulal. The High Court took into consideration the claim of PW1 Jhabbulal that at the time of the incident, he was sleeping in the courtyard of his house and that he had woken up on hearing sounds of gunshots and was scared as a result of which he stood by the side of the wall of courtyard to save himself. On scrutiny of this witness, the High Court came to the conclusion that on his own showing, it was not possible for PW1, Jhabbulal to have witnessed the incident which occurred inside the house of Guljari, more particularly when the two houses were separated by a wall having height of more than that of a normal person. 19. The High Court thereafter proceeded to examine the site plan Ext. Ka14 and concluded that when the investigating officer had made inspection of the scene of occurrence, PW1, Jhabbulal had claimed to have seen the incident through holes (mokhana) in the intervening wall, but in his substantive evidence tendered before the Court, Jhabbulal had not claimed to have seen the incident through the holes in the intervening walls. Thereafter, the High Court again took notice of the statement made by PW1, Jhabbulal that he was standing by the side of the wall of courtyard and finally concluded that it was highly doubtful that Jhabbulal who was present inside his own house had seen the incident which occurred inside the house of Guljari. 20. This Court finds that the abovestated reasons are the only reasons specified by the High Court to disbelieve the eyewitness account given by PW1, Jhabbulal. In order to find out whether the reasons assigned by the High Court to disbelieve the episode of five murders narrated by witness Jhabbulal are sound, this Court has undertaken the exercise of going through the entire testimony of witness Jhabbulal recorded before the Trial Court. In order to find out whether the reasons assigned by the High Court to disbelieve the episode of five murders narrated by witness Jhabbulal are sound, this Court has undertaken the exercise of going through the entire testimony of witness Jhabbulal recorded before the Trial Court. As far as the incident which had taken place in the house of Guljari is concerned, it was mentioned therein that at about 12 O'clock, in the night, Master Shri Krishna holding ponia gun and Ram Sewak as well as Kishori holding country-made pistols trespassed into the house of Guljari after jumping over southern side wall of the house of Gulzari and committed murder of Guljari, his wife Ramwati and son Rakesh by firing gun shots. He also mentioned in his testimony that because of the firing of gun-shots Umesh and Dharmendra who were sons of Gulzari were injured. According to him, on witnessing the said incident, he with his wife Leelawati left his home and went into the house of Khemkaran rasing hue and cry. 21. It was further mentioned by the witness Jhabbulal that the respondents had tried to trace his family and they had gone inside the shop of his brother Baburam and gunned him down after dragging him out of the shop. What was claimed by this witness was that the incident was also witnessed by Sarla Devi, daughter of Guljari, Rakesh and Madan Lal, sons of Guljari and his brothers Mohanlal, Rajaram and Kailash who were sons of Jiwan. It was asserted by him that he had witnessed the incident in the light of electric bulb. It was frankly admitted by him that no one had dared to go near to the respondents because they were carrying with firearms. 22. It was further asserted by Jhabbulal that after the respondents had left the place opposite the shop of his brother, he had gone near his injured brother who was alive and had tried to learn from Baburam as to who had assaulted him and thereupon his brother had informed him that Sri Krishna (respondent No. 1), Ram Sewak (Respondent No.2) and Kishori (Respondent No. 3) had assaulted him with firearms. It was also mentioned by him that at his instance, FIR was reduced into writing by Radhey Shyam as dictated by him and that he had filed the same at the police station. 23. It was also mentioned by him that at his instance, FIR was reduced into writing by Radhey Shyam as dictated by him and that he had filed the same at the police station. 23. The record of the case shows that this witness was crossexamined at great length. He was subjected to grueling crossexamination which runs into 31 pages. The first and firm impression which one gathers on reading the testimony of this witness is that he is a rustic witness. A rustic witness, who is subjected to fatiguing, taxing and tiring cross-examination for days together, is bound to get confused and make some inconsistent statements. Some discrepancies are bound to take place if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together. Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a rustic witness who is subjected to grueling crossexamination should not be blown out of proportion. To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to the accused who have perpetrated heinous crime. 24. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s). Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness. 25. When the respondents were firing from their respective firearms, the High Court should not have expected PW1 Jhabbulal to mention description of the whole episode which had happened in a few minutes. The rustic witnesses cannot be expected to have an exact sense of time and so cannot be expected to lay down with precision the chain of events. In the instant case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the High Court gravely erred in not accepting evidence of PW1, Jhabbulal. Jhabbulal being a rustic witness is not expected to always have an alert mind and so have an idea of direction, area and distance with precision from which he had witnessed the incident. In the instant case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the High Court gravely erred in not accepting evidence of PW1, Jhabbulal. Jhabbulal being a rustic witness is not expected to always have an alert mind and so have an idea of direction, area and distance with precision from which he had witnessed the incident. 26. It is well to notice that in his examination-in-chief, Jhabbulal never claimed that he was standing by the side of the wall of courtyard nor it was claimed by him that he had witnessed the incident through mokhana, i.e. holes in the intervening walls. Though the witness was cross-examined for days together, he was never confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he had allegedly stated before the police officer that he had witnessed the incident through holes in the intervening wall. The witness having not been confronted with his earlier police statement wherein he had reportedly stated that he had seen the incident through the holes in the intervening wall, this Court fails to understand as to how the said statement allegedly made before the police during the investigation could have been pressed into service by the High Court to reject the substantive evidence of this witness tendered before the Court wherein it was specifically asserted that while in his house, he had witnessed the incident of killing of five members of Guljari's family by the respondents by firing gun shots. 27. The prosecution has satisfactorily established that Baburam who was brother of Jhabbulal, PW1, had lost his life because of gunshots fired at him. The suggestion made by the defence to the witness that he was making a false claim that Baburam was alive and that on enquiry by him, Baburam had told him that the respondents had assaulted him with firearms, as he was tutored by the police outside the court room was emphatically denied by him. It is interesting to note that to confuse this witness he was cross-examined for days together on the point as to where and in which direction houses of Kailash, Rajaram Subedar, Darbari etc. were situated. Such an attempt by defence lawyer can hardly be approved. 28. It is interesting to note that to confuse this witness he was cross-examined for days together on the point as to where and in which direction houses of Kailash, Rajaram Subedar, Darbari etc. were situated. Such an attempt by defence lawyer can hardly be approved. 28. On re-appreciation of evidence of Jhabbulal, this Court finds that he has not made major improvements in his testimony before the Court and the so-called discrepancies which are blown out of proportion by the High Court are minor in nature and do not relate to the substratum of the prosecution story. To say the least, this Court finds that the approach of the High Court in appreciating evidence of PW1 Jhabbulal who was a rustic witness is not only contrary to the well settled principles governing appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness but is perverse. 29. At this stage, it would be well to recall to the memory the weighty observations made by this Court as early as in the year 1988 relating to appreciation of evidence and the duties expected of a Judge presiding over a criminal trial. In State of U.P. v. Anil Singh : AIR 1988 SC 1998 , it is observed as under: “…..in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. The indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes could also be pointed. The public is generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. It is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.”” 13. In Yogesh Singh (supra) the apex court has made an exercise how to deal with discrepancies in the evidence. It has been observed there as follows: “28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. [See Anil Rai v. State of Bihar : (2001) 7 SCC 318 ; State of U.P. v. Jagdeo Singh : (2003) 1 SCC 456 ; Bhagalool Lodh and Anr. v. State of U.P. : (2011) 13 SCC 206 ; Dahari and Ors. v. State of U.P. : (2012) 10 SCC 256 ; Raju @ Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2012) 12 SCC 701 ; Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors. : (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Jodhan v. State of M.P. : (2015) 11 SCC 52 ). Discrepancies in Evidence 29. It is well-settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. : (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Jodhan v. State of M.P. : (2015) 11 SCC 52 ). Discrepancies in Evidence 29. It is well-settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. [See Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P.: (1999) 8 SCC 649 ; Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Anr. : (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors. : (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri : (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal : (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr.: (2013) 12 SCC 796 ).” 14. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has responded to the proposition as advanced by Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., and placed his reliance on a few decisions of the apex court viz. P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 and Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 . Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has reiterated firmly that there is no proof of demand and acceptance. P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 and Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 . Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has reiterated firmly that there is no proof of demand and acceptance. The bald allegations against the appellant regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of pecuniary advantage remained uncorroborated. The apex court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) has observed as under: “26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam : (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.” 15. In Mukhtiar Singh (supra) the apex court has restated the law in the following manner: “13. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala : (2009) 6 SCC 587 , this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 15. 15. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. : (2014) 13 SCC 55 underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) on a survey of its earlier decisions on the prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder: “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”[emphasis supplied] 16. The question that falls for consideration is that whether the prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge under Section 13 (1) (b) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To establish the charge under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the elements, such as abuse of the possession as a public servant and obtaining for himself or any other person, any valuable things or pecuniary advantage are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. To establish the charge under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the elements, such as abuse of the possession as a public servant and obtaining for himself or any other person, any valuable things or pecuniary advantage are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. To rebut presumption of criminal misconduct would emerge when the prosecution would prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The case as projected by the prosecution on the promise that the appellant would ensure that the accused person, arrested in the case of rape of the daughter of PW-8, did not get bail, asked PW-8 to pay him Rs.10,000/-. Being convinced, PW-8 gave the appellant a sum of Rs.9,000/- inside the dwelling hut. When the said money was handed over to the appellant it has been stated that the appellant requested PW-8 not to divulge that she had handed over Rs.9,000/-. But to say that she had given only Rs.5,000/-. 17. For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions as projected by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to revisit the evidence that has been recorded in the trial. PW-1, Dulal Chandra Gope is a neighbour of PW-8 who claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the appellant. He has simply stated that in his presence some money was handed over to PW-8 by the SDPO, Bishalgarh. PW-1 had identified his signature on the receipt. Since he did not support the prosecution’s case, he was later declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he has clearly denied to have made any statement to the police that he learnt from PW-8 that she handed over Rs.9,000/- to the appellant having been demanded by him in connection with ‘rape case of her daughter’ or that the SDPO had seized that money from the appellant and the said money was returned to PW-8 in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has clearly spelt out that he cannot say for what purpose the money was returned. 18. PW-2, Jibesh Shyam Roy, is the key witness in the prosecution’s case as he lodged the written ejahar on 18.07.2013 disclosing an occurrence of 24.04.2013. In the ejahar dated 18.07.2013 [Exbt.4] he had disclosed that the appellant asked PW-8 to pay him Rs.10,000/- on promise that he would help her out. 18. PW-2, Jibesh Shyam Roy, is the key witness in the prosecution’s case as he lodged the written ejahar on 18.07.2013 disclosing an occurrence of 24.04.2013. In the ejahar dated 18.07.2013 [Exbt.4] he had disclosed that the appellant asked PW-8 to pay him Rs.10,000/- on promise that he would help her out. The appellant obtained that sum from PW-8 who took the said money from her elder daughter, Shibani Das [PW-9]. In the trial, he has stated that he was the Officer-in-Charge of Kamalasgar Outpost and on 22.04.2013 he along with the appellant and other 3 constables went to the house of PW-8 at Harihardola in connection with the investigation of Bishalgarh P.S. case No.93 of 2013 for alleged rape of her daughter. PW-2 requested PW-8 that her daughter, the victim, is required to accompany him to the place of occurrence which was away from their home and in the rubber garden. But he left the appellant in the house of the victim. On his return, he found the appellant standing nearby the gate of their house. On the following day, one Ashis Miah, a journalist, called him on his mobile informing that he had information that the appellant took Rs.9,000/- from the elder sister of the victim of the rape saying that Ganja was being stored in their house and further that unless the money was paid, the accused of the rape case would be released and they cause harm to them. Here it is to be noted that Ashis Miah was not produced as the witness in the trial. Within 15 minutes, Sharmista Chakraborty, the then SDPO, Bishalgarh [PW-11] called him and wanted to know about the occurrence. PW-11 visited the house of PW-8 without much delay and she was informed by PW-8 that her elder daughter mortgaging her gold chain to a neighbor obtained the said sum of Rs.9,000/-. On his return to the outpost, PW-2 called the appellant and asked about the allegation. The appellant returned the amount of Rs.9,000/- to him. Those currencies were of denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- and those were seized and handed over to PW-11. On the seizure list, the appellant has signed as the witness of seizure. Without explaining any further, PW-2 has stated that on 18.07.2013 on direction of PW-11 he lodged the complaint. He identified the complaint [Exbt.4]. Those currencies were of denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- and those were seized and handed over to PW-11. On the seizure list, the appellant has signed as the witness of seizure. Without explaining any further, PW-2 has stated that on 18.07.2013 on direction of PW-11 he lodged the complaint. He identified the complaint [Exbt.4]. In the cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he was not authorized to file any complaint. PW-2 has also admitted that ‘I did not make the GD entry immediately on getting the information from Sri Ashis MIah and no reason is mentioned in the GD No.428 in this regard.’ Further, PW-2 has clearly admitted that ‘in the seizure list denomination with serial numbers of the note was not mentioned. I did not mention the denomination of notes and their numbers. The time of seizure as mentioned in the seizure list is 9 am. I did not make any entry in the police station malkhana register about the seizure and did not send it to malkhana. I did not receive any complaint from the victim party against Sambika Paul regarding the demand of money.’ PW-2 has admitted that in the ejhar it has not been disclosed that money was subsequently returned. 19. PW-3, Jiban Chandra Das is another witness of returning a sum of Rs.9,000/- to PW-8 by PW-11 but he has clearly stated that he does not know anything about the case. 20. PW-4, Prabir Ranjan Saha, a head constable has stated that on 24.04.2013 around 7 pm whereas the seizure has been shown to occur at 9 am. He was asked by PW-2 from the barrack and further asked to put his signature on the seizure list [Exbt.3] but he has categorically stated that he did not know anything about the seizure. PW-4 has also asserted in the trial that he did not know anything about the case. At that stage, he was declared hostile. But he was not cross-examined by the prosecution. 21. PW-5, Ajit Sarkar is one of the witnesses who accompanied PW-2 to the house of PW-8 in connection of an investigation. On 24.04.2013, PW-2 called him and asked to put his signature in a paper. He has stated that he did not know anything why such signature was obtained. At this stage, he was also declared hostile. 22. 21. PW-5, Ajit Sarkar is one of the witnesses who accompanied PW-2 to the house of PW-8 in connection of an investigation. On 24.04.2013, PW-2 called him and asked to put his signature in a paper. He has stated that he did not know anything why such signature was obtained. At this stage, he was also declared hostile. 22. PW-6, Abul Hossain accompanied PW-2 on 24.04.2013 to reach to the house of PW-8 at Harihordola. He did not disclose anything of material importance. 23. PW-7, Dibyendu Roy was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh Police Station on 18.07.2003. On that day, he received the complaint from PW-2. He has identified the FIR form and his signature thereon. 24. PW-8, Kalpana Das is another key witness in the web. PW-8 has stated that about one year four months before the day when her statement was recorded, PW-2 visited the house to investigate the rape case of her daughter. He took her to the place of occurrence. At that time, other police officers, Sambika Paul [the appellant] with two constables entered in her hut and started search. She has elaborated by stating that ‘one star police officer said that Ganja [cannabis] was stored in her hut but he could not recover any Ganja’. PW-8 has stated in the trial as follows: “Thereafter they said that unless I paid Rs.10,000/-, the accused arrested in connection with the rape case, would be released on bail and if the money was paid, he would see that accused did not get bail. I have expressed my inability to pay the money when he said in that case, the accused would be released on bail and would cause troubles to us, and hearing this I handed over Rs.9000/- to him. The money was kept to me by my daughter. She brought the money mortgaging her gold chain for the purpose of treatment of my daughter Swapna?s husband. Out of this I spent Rs.10000/- earlier and handed over the remaining Rs.9000/- to him. My Shibani and Sanjit were present when I paid the money. After some time the O/C returned with Soma handing me over Soma at the gate they left the house.” 25. Out of this I spent Rs.10000/- earlier and handed over the remaining Rs.9000/- to him. My Shibani and Sanjit were present when I paid the money. After some time the O/C returned with Soma handing me over Soma at the gate they left the house.” 25. PW-9, Shibani Das, daughter of PW-8 has stated that on evening PW-2 along with one police officer Sambika Paul [the appellant] and other 3 constables entered into the house of her mother in connection with investigation of the case relating to rape of the victim [her younger sister]. On arrival there, PW-2 along with one constable went to the place of occurrence. PW-8 and PW-10 Sanjit Das [her brother] was in that house. The appellant insisted that there was storage of ganja [cannabis] in that house but on search he did not find any ganja. The appellant thereafter, scared her mother by stating that the arrested persons would shortly be released on bail. If PW-8 could manage some money he would see that the accused person did not get bail. PW-8 was perplexed because she had no money. It may be noted that PW-8 herself in the trial had admitted that position. PW-9 thereafter stated as under: “Thereafter my mother paid him Rs.9000/-. Two days before, I brought Rs.10,000/- mortgaging my golden chain for the purpose of nose operation of Swapna?s husband. Out of that my mother had spent Rs.1000/- and the balance Rs.9000/- was paid by her to Sambika Pal. After some time the O/C returned with my sister and leaving her he along with Sambika Pal and other police personnel had returned. About 10-12 later the SDPO Madam came to our house and paid back the money to my mother.” But in the cross-examination she has admitted that they did not make any complaint against the appellant for demanding money. She denied the suggestion that the appellant did not demand any money from PW-8 or that no money was paid by them but at the fag end of the cross-examination she had made the following statement: I did not bring any money mortgaging my golden chain or that I did not have any golden chain. There was no documents regarding mortgaging of the golden chain. 26. PW-10, Sanjit Das, a child witness was examined after ascertaining that he understood the duty to speak the truth. There was no documents regarding mortgaging of the golden chain. 26. PW-10, Sanjit Das, a child witness was examined after ascertaining that he understood the duty to speak the truth. He has stated that the appellant and two other entered their hut for search of ganja but did not get. Thereafter, the appellant demanded money from his mother and his mother paid him Rs.10,000/-. After 10-12 days the money was returned to his mother by the SDPO [PW-11]. 27. PW-11, Sarmistha Chakraborty, who was the SDPO at the relevant point of time, has stated that she had investigated the case and visited the place of occurrence at Harihordola which was the house of PW-8. On the way she dropped at Kamalasagar outpost and recorded the statement of the Officer-in-Charge [PW-2]. She had recorded the statements of PW-8 and PW-10. She has stated that on 22.07.2013 she collected the extract of GD No.428 dated 24.04.2013. The original GD book was produced by her in the trial and identified the signature of PW-2. Thereafter she has stated as follows: “On 24.04.2013 O/C, Kamalasagar Out Post Shri Jibesh Shyam Roy informed her over telephone informed me that ASI Sambika Paul of Kamalasagar Out Post had taken Rs.9,000/- from Smt. Kalpana Das of Harihardola in connection with the Bishalgarh Police Station 93 of 2013 under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and that the money was taken by him on 22.04.2013 in the evening. He further informed me that being asked, Sambika Paul had handed over the money to him.” For sake of appreciating the evidence by collation, it may be noted that in the written ejahar nowhere it has been mentioned that the informant [PW-2] had reported the matter to PW-11. That apart, in the trial PW-2 has stated as follows which is absolutely in contrast to the statement made by PW-11: “After about 15 minutes Smt. Sharmistha Chakraborty, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bishalgarh called me in my mobile and wanted to know about the incident. She further informed that she was arriving after some time. On her arrival, at about 4-30 pm, we went to the house of the victim. Reaching the house, Madam asked Smt. Kalpana Das, mother of the victim about the allegation whom she informed that ASI Sambika Paul demanded Rs.10,000/- saying that otherwise the case would become weaker. She further informed that she was arriving after some time. On her arrival, at about 4-30 pm, we went to the house of the victim. Reaching the house, Madam asked Smt. Kalpana Das, mother of the victim about the allegation whom she informed that ASI Sambika Paul demanded Rs.10,000/- saying that otherwise the case would become weaker. Further that her elder daughter thereafter mortgaged her golden chain with the neighbor and obtaining Rs.9,000/- paid the amount to Sambika Paul. On return to the Out Post, at about 7 pm Madam called Sambika Paul and in my chamber being asked about the allegation whom he returned the amount of Rs.9,000/- to me in notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- which I seized and handed over the SDPO Madam.” PW-11 in her cross –examination has clearly stated that in the seizure list dated 24.04.2013 there is no case reference. There is no mention of Nos. of currency notes. Even it is not indicated whether those are Indian currency or not. In the receipt obtained from PW-8, there is no description of the currency notes. She has also stated that without taking any persimmon from any authority, the currency notes were returned to PW-8. From analysis of her statement nowhere it can be found that at the time of seizure she was present in the Kamalasagar outpost. In the cross-examination she has only stated that the money was handed over to her by PW-2. However, she had admitted that knowing the incident on 24.04.2013 she did not lodge a suo motu complaint against the appellant. 28. PW-12, Shyamananda Sharma, the investigating officer of the later part of the investigation. He had submitted the chargesheet. In the cross-examination he has made the following statement: “The seizure list dated 24.04.2013 and the receipt of Smt. Kalpana Das came into existence before the FIR was lodged. There is no mention of case reference in the two documents. The money in question was not produced to me and I did not seize the same.” 29. As stated, from the defence one witness, namely Bishu Debnath [DW-1] was examined in the trial. DW-1 has stated that he saw PW-2 in the rubber garden with a girl [indicating to the victim]. At that time, the appellant was also there. He denied the suggestion in contrast made by the prosecution. 30. As stated, from the defence one witness, namely Bishu Debnath [DW-1] was examined in the trial. DW-1 has stated that he saw PW-2 in the rubber garden with a girl [indicating to the victim]. At that time, the appellant was also there. He denied the suggestion in contrast made by the prosecution. 30. It is interesting to note that in the receipt by which PW-8 has claimed to have received the money from the appellant it has been stated that on 22.04.2013 she paid Rs.9,000/- to one police officer of Kamalasagar outpost in connection with the rape case of her daughter as demanded by the said police officer. There is no material from which it can be inferred that the said police officer was the appellant. From the seizure list [Exbt.3] what has surfaced is that there is no word that the money was seized from the appellant. On the contrary, it has been noted that ‘Rs.9,000/- was received from ASI, Sambika Paul’. As already noted, there is no reference to any GD entry and number of currency notes. Moreover, both the seizure witnesses have denied the occurrence of seizure. On 24.04.2013 in the GD entry No.428/2013 PW-2 has recorded that Kalpana Das was assured that if she gave Rs.10,000/-, the appellant will not search for ganja [cannabis] and further, it has been recorded in the said entry that the appellant admitted to have taken money from PW-8. The appellant had returned that money. There is no statement in respect of seizure from the possession of the appellant. But in the sanction order dated 15.02.2014 it has been recorded that on assurance that the appellant would ensure that the accused persons are not granted bail, the said amount was received by the appellant. In the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant has categorically stated that since he did not support the illegal act of PW-2, he has been falsely implicated by him in a fabricated and baseless case in connivance with the said SDPO. But the defence has however, made no endeavour further to explain ‘the illegal act’ of PW-2. 31. From the evidence as discussed, the following features have clearly surfaced which were not taken into consideration in their perspective or in segregating chaff from the grain of truth by the Special Judge while returning the finding of conviction: (i) No complaint was filed by PW-8. 31. From the evidence as discussed, the following features have clearly surfaced which were not taken into consideration in their perspective or in segregating chaff from the grain of truth by the Special Judge while returning the finding of conviction: (i) No complaint was filed by PW-8. (ii) Emergence of serious incongruity between the statements of the principal witnesses, such as PW-2, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11. (iii) The questioned seizure of the currency note as purportedly received from the appellant. No seizure witness supported the seizure in the manner as projected by the prosecution. (iv) Delayed filing of FIR has not been explained. On the contrary the parlays between the witnesses and the complainant including the one of the investigating officers [PW-1] have surfaced much before registration of the case or lodging of the complaint. (v) The contradiction in the statements made by PW-9 vis-à-vis the statement of PW-8 are so grave in nature that itself has left the prosecution case at bay, inasmuch as PW-8 has stated that she had no money but she borrowed money from PW-9 who obtained that money on mortgaging her ornaments, but PW- 9 has clearly stated in the cross-examination that she had no ornaments and she had not borrowed money from mortgaging ornament. (vi) Even if the testimony of DW-1 is not given any weight then also prosecution case is fraught with serious doubt. DW-1 has stated that he saw the appellant in the rubber plantation with the rape victim and PW-2. These discrepancies cannot be brushed aside in as much as the constables who were with the appellant at the alleged time of occurrence and the witnesses of seizure [the constables] did not support the prosecution’s case on any part. Even the prosecution had no explanation for such non-corroboration. 32. Having regard to all these infirmities as pointed out above, the appellant is liable to get the benefit of doubt. As consequence, the impugned judgment and order are set aside. The appellant is set at liberty on his acquittal from the charge as stated above. 33. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Send down the LCRs.