The evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction, and the presumption under Section 4 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied in cases where the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows :

1. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

On July 24, 1978, one Sitaram S/o Sukharam lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACD, Sikar. It had been alleged therein that his brother (Banwarilal) was arrested on July 23, 1978 by Sugan Singh (appellant) ASI of Police Station Sadar (Sikar); on that date, Sugan Singh had sought three days' police remand; when he (Sitaram) along with Shiv Dayal (his brother-in law) had met Sugan Singh at the police station & requested him to release his brother Banwarilal (accused in a criminal case in which investigation was being conducted by the present appellant), the appellant demanded Rs. 150/- as bribe for the release of Banwarilal on hail from the Court but Sitaram told that he was a poor man, so, was unable to bring the amount and thereupon Sugan Singh told that he was not taking any bribe but was doing his work, and then Sitaram & Shiv dayal both cane hack. But again, in the morning of 24th July, 1978, Sitaram all alone met Sugan Singh in Court campus then Sugan Singh gave out that since no amount of Rs. 150/- was given so, the police remand so as to investigate further from his brother Banwarilal was sought; and that, if they would pay the amount, Banwarilal would he got released on bail from the Court on the next date, otherwise further police remand would he sought. Against it, Sitaram told him that to pay Rs. 150/-was beyond his financial capacity and at the worst, he would be able to arrange only Rs. 50/- and then it would be given to him. But again, Sugan Singh persisting his demand, inclined to negotiate at Rs. 100/-and saying so, asked Sitaram to being Rs. 100/- if arranged, so as to pay himat Kalyan Circle or in here by market or police out-post thereat. in case he (Sitaram) was really anxious to get his brother released on hail, in the evening.

From the complaint (Ex. P.2) it appears that the complainant did not relish the idea of being dealt with in this manner and he was interested in getting the appellant entrapped.

2. Accordingly, the complaint (Ex. P.2)asserting the aforesaid facts, was made by Sitaram to the anti corruption department, as stated above, suggesting laying of trap against the appellant. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the Dy. S.P. The complainant produced Rs. 10/- consisting of ten currency notes of Rs. 10/- each-number of which were noted & the anthracene power was applied to them and the Dy. S.P. also put his initials on the currency notes. The trap party was then formed consisting of Murarilal (P.W.2)& Anil Kumar (P.W. 6), Roop Singh(P.W.8),Gyarislal (P.W.10), Virendra Godika (Dy. S.P.), & Sitaram (P.W. 11). The decoy (complainant) was instructed to pay the a mount to the appellant and the accompanying witnesses (Panchas) P.W. 2 & P.W. 6, were instructed to remain with the complainant and hear the conversation in between Sitaram & appellant before the money is passed on and thereafter, to give a singal by placing their hands on the head, to the trap party. The trap party and other police functionaries went to the spot and at 6.45 p.m. the members of the trap party after arriving at Kalyan Circle, took their respective positions as instructed while preparing the memorandum and all of them were waiting the appellant. At 8.15 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from Kutcheri Road & then turning to Station Road, but upon seeing the decoy standing near Sikar Hotel, the appellant alighted from his bicycle and started talking with the decoy, but the appellant carried on moving on foot along with the decoy towards Court road (at that time, the trap party's members are sa