Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Testimony of Official witness - When disbelieved. - Accused found working on Still distilling illicit liquor and convicted. Conviction resting on evidence by official witnesses. No independent '5itness joined although some persons from public were moving about. Convic- tion set aside. Case resting upon testimony of official witnesses. Independent witnesses, joined but not ex- amined by prosecution. Presence of one of official witnesses at the time of raid doubtful. Ac- cused entitled to acquittal. Held, that when there is some improbability in the presence of the witness and then that improbability is further fortified by refusal to answer a relevant question it is difficult to place reliance upon the statement of such a witness. Furthermore, Excise In- spector Santokh Singh could be said to be interested in the success of the case under the Excise Act. It is highly probable that Assistant Sub-Inspector Raghbir Singh called upon Excise Inspector Santokh Singh at some subsequent stage of the case to come forward as an aye-witness to the recovery of the working still. There is thus only the statement for Assistant sub Inspector Raghbir Singh PW 2 which cannot be said to be sufficient in the circumstances of the case to prove the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted. Conviction based on evidence of official witnesses. It is hackneyed argument that evidence of official witnesses should not accepted. Official testimony is not on a disadvantage and has to be appraised without bias. Conviction based on the testimony of lone official witness. Effect. Where the two non-official witnesses declined to support the prosecution case and the only evidence left was that of Head Constable. Held, that it would as a matter of prudence be not safe to sustain the conviction on the testimony of the said lone official witness. Only one independent witness not supporting the prosecution case. Statements of police witnesses contradictory on material points. Investigation conducted by comparatively junior police official. Minor discrepancies in statements of police officials assume significance. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. Accused acquitted. Petitioner found engaged in the distillation of illicit liquor. Conviction resting on the testimony of two official witnesses only. Duty of the Court. Discrepancies in the testimony of both official witnesses. Petitioner acquitted. Prosecution case resting on evidence of official witnesses alone. Independent witness to the raid given up as having been won over and actually examined as a D.W. Statements of official witnesses inconsistent \n material particulars. Defence probable. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted. Prosecution relied on official witnesses. Such discrepancies assume significance.2 Raid by Police party. Recovery of Lahan. No effort made by the Police to join any resident of locality. In this view of the matter, testimony of official witnesses alone cannot be sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused. Recovery of illicit liquor by Police. No independent witness joined. Case based on official witnesses who made tutored parrot-like statements which inspired little confidence. Accused acquitted.