Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Official witness - Case cannot be thrown out. - As a rule of prudence, corroboration preferably by a reliable witness is desirable. But in all cases, such corroboration cannot be in- sisted as a matter of course because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an independent witness. Where the prosecution case is supported by official witnesses only it cannot be thrown out on this scope alone; but where the evidence of such witnesses suffers from some infim1ity it cannot be implicity relied upon. In the present case there were serious contradictions between the statement of the Sub-Inspector and the Head Constable about the arrest of the petitioner. If the accused had been arrested on 8th of February 1971, then the prosecution case about his working the still on the 7th of February, 1971, is obviously untrue. The accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Prosecution based on testimony of official witness. - Nothing on record to suggest that offi- cial witness had any animus to implicate the accused falsely - He has also conscience, and why should he implicate the accused falsely when he know that this case can land him in jail for a period of one year in the minimum. Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 405(P&H) Official witnesses. Statements of official witnesses have to be considered like the state- ments of other witnesses. But where the case is based on the testimony of the official wit- nesses only, it is the duty of the court to scrutinise their evidence with care and caution. Testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded only because of their official status. Recovery of illicit liquor, Lahan and a working still. No independent witness joined as Police had no prior information and it was a chance recovery. Conviction based on two official witnesses. Evidence of official witnesses unimpeachable and no malice on their part towards accused. Conviction upheld. Police on patrol duty. Recovery of illicit liquor. No independent witness joined. In such a case court is required to scan the ocular evidence of official witnesses minutely and with more caution. 1977 PLR 571 relied.