accused replied that the certificate can be collected only after the said sum of Rs.800/- was arranged. Thereafter, P.W.2 went away promising to come with money. Thus, as per the evidence of P.W.2, he went to the office of the accused on 09.09.2004 and also on 10.09.2004 and he was asked on both days by the accused to pay Rs.800/- and then only the legal heir certificate will be issued. As stated above, while P.W.2 has initially stated that he informed the accused about his inability to come on 10.09.2004, but, subsequently, he himself met the accused on that day. However, when P.W.2 was cross examined, he turned hostile and totally denied the version given by him in the chief examination. He stated that he met the accused for the first time only on 13.09.2004, when the trap proceeding was held and stated that he did not go inside the office of the accused, but gave the amount through window. He also stated that nobody came with him. The same was contrary to the claim of P.W.3 the official trap witness and P.W.6, the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, when P.W.2 was cross examined by the prosecution, he again turner around and supported the version stated by him in his chief examination. Thus, P.W.2 has given contradictory evidence about the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused.
