Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Testimony of Official witness - When believed. - Recovery of opium. Prosecution case based on official witnesses disinterested . No dent could be made against their testi- mony in cross examination. Testimony of official witnesses could not be doubted. Accused alongwith another person found attending to the working still for distilling illicit liquor. Appellate Court acquitted the other persons for want of sufficient evidence to connect him with offence. Prosecution story resting on official witnesses found to be doubtful. Peti- tioner acquitted. Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 61(1)(c). Benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC cannot be extended to cases of this kind. Evidence of Official witness has to be weighed in same scale as any other testimony if such witnesses are not held to have any animus or hostility against accused. Accused found in possession of a drum of Lahan fit for containing 20 kg. of Lahan for dis- tillation of illicit liquor. Official witnesses testimony consistent. Accused first offender and 23 years of age. In the circumstances of the case that the accused given benefit of probation of Offenders Act. Conviction of accused based on evidence of official witnesses. Conviction upheld. Joinin9 of independent witness would have leaked the information of raid and frustrated the purpose. Police held a picket and recovered illicit liquor from accused. No independent witness could be joined in these circumstances. Accused rightly convicted believing testimony of official witness. Sentence of accused, however, reduced from 1-1/2 years to 6 months as the accused was first offender. Prosecution story rests solely on the testimony of official witnesses. Held that it is now more than amply settled that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be thrown out of considera- tion merely because of their status. Raid by Police Party. Working Still and illicit liquor recovered from the house of accused. No independent witness joined by raiding party. In such a case prosecution evidence has to be scrutinized carefully. But it cannot be doubted merely on the ground that no non-official witness was joined. No evidence that official witnesses were in any way inimical towards the accused. Conviction upheld. Raiding party comprised official witnesses. Testimony of official witnesses is not to be dis- carded merely on that score. Recovery of illicit liquor. Conviction of accused based on official witnesses. Conviction not to be set aside. An official witness commands same respect as any other witness. More so no discrepancy was pointed out in the statements of the official witnesses. Recovery of lahan. Prosecution case based on official witnesses. An official witness cannot be doubted only on the ground that he is an official witness. Recovery of Opium from accused. Accused suddenly intercepted by Police. No occasio~ for Police to join any witness from Public. Conviction validly based on official testimony. Recovery of working Still. conviction based on official witnesses. It was explained that on receipt of secret information, nobody met the raiding party. Police has to act post haste. No adverse inference could be drawn as no hint of animus was suggested against the official wit- nesses.