prosecution. The subsequent investigation based on the alleged confessional statement of the accused and seizure of M.O.4 scanner with printer at his house at Nizamabad, was not believed by the lower Court as there is no reliable and independent evidence. Even if evidence of PWs.5 and 6 are ignored and taken out of record, there is evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 to speak to the offence proper. Though PWs.1 and 2 failed to identify the accused, perhaps due to lapse of time, PW.4 identified the accused as the person who was produced by PWs.1 and 2 along with MOs.1 to 3 and Ex.P.1 report. There is connecting link for the prosecution from the evidence of PW.4 coupled with evidence of PWs.1 and 2. That apart, the lower Court placed reliance on Karamjit Singh v State (Delhi Administration )[1] of the Supreme Court to believe evidence of the Police Officer P.W.4 whose evidence is not in any way tainted. When there are no circumstances to disbelieve Police Officer’s evidence, evidence of a Police Officer cannot be discarded or disbelieved simply on the sole ground that he is a Police Officer. That apart, the present case is not one where there is sole evidence of the Police Officer to prove the entire offence. There is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to prove the entire facts relating to the offence, except with regard
