Summary: Accompanying Witness Contradicts the Complainant in Trap Proceedings
Contradictions in Witness Testimonies Multiple sources highlight inconsistencies between the testimonies of shadow or accompanying witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW10, PW19) and other evidence or official proceedings. For instance, PW2 in sources 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2491, 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16158, and 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1103 admits to not being present during the demand or acceptance of bribe, contradicting the prosecution's narrative that they witnessed the illegal act. Similarly, PW3's account in 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 270 and 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 567 conflicts with official records and the statements of other witnesses, casting doubt on their reliability.
Inconsistencies in Trap Procedure and Evidence Collection Several sources note procedural lapses, such as the absence of instructions to witnesses (2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 710, 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1730), and the fact that witnesses like PW2 and PW3 did not follow the expected protocol, including not accompanying the complainant during critical moments or not supporting the prosecution's version of events. For example, in
L. Venkateshwara Rao VS State of AP, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range - Crimes
, the witness's account of the trap and subsequent proceedings conflicts with official records, and the absence of independent witnesses or mediators further questions the authenticity of the trap.Suspicion and Conduct of the Accused The accused's suspicious behavior, such as scrutinizing the shadow witness, taking the tainted currency, and returning it to the complainant, suggests possible manipulation or misconduct during the trap, as noted in 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2491 and 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16158. The trial courts failed to adequately consider the conduct of the accused post-bribe, which could undermine the integrity of the trap evidence.
Doubts About the Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence Several sources emphasize that witnesses like PW2 and PW3 had motivations or circumstances that could influence their testimony, such as being relatives or interested parties (close relative, 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 270, 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 552). The death of key witnesses (e.g., the complainant in 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2491) further complicates the reliability of the evidence.
Legal and Procedural Concerns The courts' failure to scrutinize discrepancies, procedural lapses, and the conduct of witnesses, including the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the trap proceedings, raises questions about the validity of the conviction based solely on shadow witness testimonies.
Analysis and Conclusion
The sources collectively reveal significant contradictions and procedural irregularities involving the accompanying witnesses in trap cases. Witnesses like PW2 and PW3 often deny witnessing the critical demand or acceptance of bribe, and their testimonies conflict with official records and other witnesses' statements. The conduct of the accused and the witnesses suggests possible manipulation, and the absence of independent witnesses or proper procedural adherence undermines the credibility of the trap evidence. Courts have sometimes overlooked these discrepancies, which could impact the fairness and validity of the conviction in such cases. These insights highlight the importance of corroborative evidence and procedural integrity in trap proceedings involving accompanying witnesses.
References:- 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2491- 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 270- 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 567- 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 1350- 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 552- 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1103- 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16158- 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 710- 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1730-
L. Venkateshwara Rao VS State of AP, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range - Crimes
