The court emphasized the principle of benefit of doubt, concluding that significant contradictions in witness testimonies rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to uphold a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Ms. Akanksha Malviya learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. Anil Singh, Special Vigilance Public Prosecutor.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2018 and 26.11.2018, passed by the learned Spl. Judge, Vigilance (Trap Case), Patna in Special Case No. 53 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No. 117 of 2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’), and directed to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, was further directed to undergo SI for three months. He was further sentenced and directed to undergo RI for four years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with (1) (d) of the Act of 1988 and in default of payment of fine, was directed to undergo SI for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The appellant Ramashray Prasad @ Ramashray Prasad Yadav was Sub-Inspector in Sahebganj Police Station at the relevant time. According to allegation, he was trapped by the members of the trap team while accepting the bribe from the complainant Priya Ranjan Kumar (PW-6). According to the allegation, Priya Ranjan Kumar, lodged a written complaint on 20.10.2016 before the S.P.-cum-Officer in Charge Vigilance P.S. Patna. In his complaint, he made allegation that his father’s Apachee motorcycle, bearing Registration No. BR06-AW-2137, which was parked in front of his shop, was stolen away by unknown thieves. Priya Ranjan Kumar lodged a case in Sahebganj P.S. which was registered as Sahebganj P.S.Case No. 229/2016 and the appellant Ramashray Prasad @ Ramashray Prasad Yadav was assigned the investigation of that case. The appellant, in the course of investigation, came to the shop of the complainant and demanded Rs. 5000/- for helping the complainant. The complainant was not willing to give the bribe and he filed the complaint. Chandra Bhushan Kumar Singh (PW-5), who was a constable, was given the assignment of verification of the complaint. He verified the complaint. He verified the complaint on 20.10.2016 at 4:45 P.M. In course of verification, PW-5 saw the appellant demanding Rs. 5000/- at a tea stall, for helping the complainant in the case of motorcycle theft. At the request of the complainant, the appellant reduced the amount of bribe from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/-. Then PW-5, being assured that the allegation was true, submitted his verification report (Ext.4) to the S.P.-cum-Officer-in-charge Vigilance P.S. Patna on 27.10.2016.

4. On the basis of that report, a trap team was constituted under the leadership of Arun Shukla, Dy. S.P. of Vigilance (PW-8). The members of the trap team were Police Inspector, Sri Narayan Singh (PW-1), Satya Narayan Ram (PW- 2), Aasif Ekbal Mehandi, A.S.I. (PW-7), Indrajeet Singh (not examined), Head Constable Naresh Kumar Mandal (not examined), Constable Chandra Bhushan Kumar Singh (PW-5), and Arurendra Kumar Yadav (PW-3). On 27.10.2016 between 17:30 hours and 19:30 hours, a meeting of the trap team was held in the Vigilance Headquarters, Patna. PW-5, the verifier, introduced the complainant to the members of the trap team. In the presence of the members of the trap team, the complainant produced four G.C.