the accused put the amount in his right side pant pocket. However, the Official witness who deposed as P.W.3 stated that when they reached the office of the accused, the accused was talking with another person and when they requested him to help in their matter, the accused enquired P.W.2 as to whether he has brought the amount sought for by him. Immediately P.W.2 handed over Rs.1000/- to the accused and he received the amount with his left hand and counted the same with his right hand and then put the amount in his right side pant pocket. Immediately P.W.2 went out of the accused room. Thus P.W.3 has not stated anything about the accused asking balance of sum of Rs.2000/-. It creates doubt as to whether really the occurrence took place as stated by the complainant. Further P.W.2 having stated in his chief examination that when accused demanded Rs.3000/- as bribe amount, there was no other person present, it is unbelievable that he would have brought only Rs.1000/- as bribe money. P.W.2 also stated that he kept Rs.1000/- as bribe amount in his right side shirt pocket in his chief examination. However, in his cross examination, P.W.2 stated that the bribe amount was kept by him in his right side pant pocket. In his further cross examination, P.W.2 stated that the bribe amount was kept by him in his shirt pocket. It is also pointed out that P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that for effecting name transfer, he was informed by the accused that expenses has to be paid, to which he has agreed. Considering the above said circumstances, doubt arises as to whether really the demand was made by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. Further P.W.3, the trap witness has stated in his cross examination that he do not remember as to whether the complaint given by P.W.2 was typed one or handwritten. P.W.3 also stated that in Ex.P.8Entrustment Mahazar, nothing was mentioned about where the bribe amount was kept by P.W.2 either in his pant pocket or shirt pocket. P.W.3 also stated that he is unaware as to whether P.W.2 was having handkerchief to give pre arranged signal. It creates doubt. Since P.W.3 has stated in his chief examination that after the accused received the amount from P.W.2, he came out of the accused room and gave the prearranged signal as told by Investigating Officer by removing his glass and wiping it with his handkerchief, if P.W.3 was unaware as to whether P.W.2 was having handkerchief or not, his evidence about the signal given by P.W.2 is doubtful. Further P.W.2 also stated that he cannot say as to the direction which the Aynavaram Revenue Inspector office is facing. He also stated that he informed the Police that P.W.2 is his brother-in-law. In such circumstances, doubt arises as to whether really P.W.3 accompanied P.W.2 and witnessed the incidents as stated by P.W.2.
