Partial hostility of trap witnesses does not vitiate conviction when corroborated by substantive evidence and forensic recovery.

The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police, was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that on July 11, 1996, the appellant and SI Rajesh Kumar demanded a bribe of ₹1,000 and ₹5,000 respectively from the complainant (PW5) to accept a bail bond following an anticipatory bail order.

A trap was laid on July 12, 1996, where the appellant allegedly accepted ₹1,000 treated with phenolphthalein powder.

Although SI Rajesh Kumar was named in the FIR, he was not chargesheeted due to alleged lack of evidence.

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing hostile witnesses, discrepancies in recovery, and the "interested" nature of the complainant's witnesses.

1. Whether the testimony of witnesses who turned partially hostile (PW3 and PW4) and discrepancies regarding the exact location of the recovered money (pocket of worn pants vs. pants on a peg) are fatal to the prosecution case.

2. Whether the complainant (PW5) and his friend (PW7) qualify as "interested witnesses" whose testimony must be discarded.

3. Whether the failure to chargesheet SI Rajesh Kumar or the partial inaudibility of the audio recording entitles the appellant to an acquittal.

The Court applied Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State, establishing that demand and acceptance must be proved as facts in issue.

The principle that the testimony of a hostile witness is not discarded in toto but can be relied upon for portions that inspire confidence (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab).

The doctrine from Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab that a "close friend" or "relative" is not automatically an "interested witness" unless they have a direct animus to falsely implicate the accused.

Under Section 20, a presumption arises upon proof of acceptance of gratification.

The Court found the testimonies of PW5 and PW7 consistent regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe.

Although PW3 (shadow witness) and PW4 (recovery witness) were partially hostile regarding whether the money was in the appellant's worn pants or hanging on a peg, they both admitted that the hand and pocket washes of the appellant turned pink in sodium carbonate solution—a crucial incriminating fact.

The Court rejected the defense's claim that PW7 was an "interested witness," noting his presence was natural as he was the intended surety for the bail bond.

Regarding the audio recording, the Court held that even if the transcript was partially inaudible, it corroborated the demand, and the lack of a full recording did not negate the strong oral and forensic evidence.

The Court further observed that the appellant’s silence upon being challenged during the trap was a relevant circumstance under M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.

The failure to chargesheet SI Rajesh Kumar was deemed a lapse by the IO but did not exonerate the appellant given the direct evidence of his own acceptance of illegal gratification.

It ruled that minor discrepancies in recovery and the hostility of certain witnesses did not outweigh the consistent evidence of the complainant and the positive chemical trap results.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.