Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Joining of independent witness must. - A Head Constable, who is on patrol duty could expect that the party may detect some crime-crime detection is the main purpose of a patrolling party. It was, therefore, necessary for the Head Constable to have taken an inde- pendent witnesses with him when he went on patrol duty in the area of the Police Post. Leaving this apart there are some material discrepancies in the evidence produced and for this reason it is not safe to convict the accused. Recovery of illicit liquor by Police party headed by Head Constable - No evidence that in- vestigation was verified by a Senior Officer - No independent witness joined - Accused acquitted. Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab. J 998(2) RCR(Criminal) 690(P&H) Recovery of working still and 250 Kgs. of Lahan - No effort made to join independent wit- ness - Conviction could not be sustained on basis of Head Constable and one Constable who are lower in rung and were also discrepant - Conviction set aside. Jang Singh @ Jangi v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 93(P&H) Prosecution attempting to introduce a got-up witness. Investigation tainted on this score. No independent witness from the locality joined in the raiding party. Evidence of official wit- nesses held to be unreliable and insufficient to sustain the conviction. Accused acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor. Liquor was loaded on a truck. Police chased the truck and fired three shots and burst three tyres. Recovery of liquor effected at thoroughfare. No independent witness joined. Empty cartridges and tyres not taken into possession. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt Accused convicted under Excise Act. Raiding party passed through many villages but did not join any independent witness. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Accused found working a still near his village. Respectables from the village not associated at the time of raid. Witness associated by Police being himself a liquor vender and obviously a convenient witness of police. Held that omission to join respectables from the village makes prosecution case doubtful. Accused acquitted. Conviction under. Five drums of lahan found from the petitioner. The prosecution did not joint anybody from the public Material discrepancies in the version about calling persons from the village to witness the recovery not safe to convict the petitioner. Excise Raid by Police. Independent witnesses from locality not joined. Prosecution took plea that attempt was made to join witnesses from locality but none came forward. Held. it was mandatory for Police to join witnesses from adjoining locality in such a situation under Section 100(4). Accused acquitted. Failure on the part of Police to join independent witnesses in the raiding party. Conviction on testimony of official witnesses alone. Evidence of official witnesses must be scrutinised closely. In the circumstances of the case, evidence of official witnesses found to be doubtful. Conviction set aside by High Court. Independent witnesses joined with the patrolling party found to be inimical towards ac- cused. Material discrepancies in statements of P.Ws. Prosecution story doubtful. Conviction set aside. No independent person joined by the police. Material discrepancies in the statements of of- ficial witnesses produced by the prosecution. Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction set aside. Held, that in the first place, there is hardly any reliable explanation for not associating a member of the public in the party which was out to do excise checking. Even though this fact is ignored, the discrepancies in the doubt in regard to the two official witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in regard to the prosecution version. No independent witness joined by Police Party at the time of raid. Chowkidar of village joined who is supposed to be under influence of Police. Material discrepancies found in the statements of official witnesses. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. No independent witness joined the raiding party. One of the witnesses had already appeared in cases with the police party. Prosecution story not reliable. Not safe to convict the petitioner on the mere testimony of two official witnesses. Non-joinder of independent witness. Accused apprehended by 'Nakabandi' party at Bus Stand of a town in broad day light. Lame excuse of the Investigator that no independent wit- ness was then present is not acceptable. Possibility could not be ruled out that the accused was arrested from somewhere else and recovery of the liquor was effected in some other manner. Accused acquitted. 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 p<j}ice officials assume significance. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. Accused acquitted. Police conducting raid and recovering 5 kgs. of Lahan from accused. Independent witnesses not joined though easily available. Held, it was non- compliance of Section 100 Cr. P.c.. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 100(1). Police conducting raid and recovering illicit liquor. Police did not join any member of Public. Conviction of accused set aside. Police conducting raid and recovering lahan. No witness from locality associated. Statement of Police officer that no independent witness could be found. No reason given why independent witnesses not available when place of raid was not a seclude one. It violated mandatory provision of Section 100 Cr. PC. Entire investigation nugatory. Police party found the petitioner distilling illicit liquor and Iahan. Case of secret information. Police did not care to join any independent person from the locality. Presence of number of discrepancies in the testimony of official witnesses. Accused acquitted. Police recovered illicit liquor from house search of accused. No attempt made to join two in- habitants of locality. Held it is incumbent upon Police to join two inhabitants of locality before entering the house of a citizen. Accused acquitted despite the fact that testimony of official witnesses as good as of other witnesses. It is true that the testimony of the official witnesses is as good as of other witnesses but in the circumstances of the present case when the recovery is made from the house of the petitioner without joining any body from the locality, as per the procedure laid down in Section 100 sub- section (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is provided in the above- said Section that before the police enters the house of a citizen, it is incumbent upon them to associate with them atleast two inhabitants of the locality and if they are not available, from the neighboring locality and if none of them is prepared to join then the police officer is to record that fact and even the person who refused to join in the search he can be prosecuted under Section 187 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case resting on the testimony of police officials. Recovery effected by the Police while on patrol duty. No independent witness joined with the patrolling party. Material discrepancies in the statements of the official witnesses. Conviction set aside. Raid by Police. Independent witnesses not associated. The fact whether it was necessary to associate independent witnesses or not has to be appreciated. Evidence of official witnesses could be relied upon if their deposition inspired confidence. Raiding party did not join any public witness although some villages fell in the way. Only solitary evidence on Sub-Inspector. Even no other official witness to corroborate him. Not safe to convict the accused. Raiding party did not care to join any body from the public or from the locality. The state- ments of the official witnesses found to be discrepant on number of points. The petitioner given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor and lahan. No witness from locality joined. Story that accused came out of Tubewell Kotha with bladder containing liquor not creditable. Accused acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor and working still by Police party headed by Head constable. No in- dependent witness joined. Unsafe to convict the accused without independent corroboration as the raiding party was headed by a petty police official. Recovery of illicit liquor by a Police party headed by Head Constable. No independent wit- ness joined. Statement of Head Constable that persons residing in the village refused to join. Action taken against those persons by the Police and this fact also not mentioned in the case diary. Case doubtful. Accused acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor from house of accused. Prosecution did not join any independent witness. Not safe to convict the accused. It is incumbent upon Police to join two respectable persons of locality and if any body refuse to join, Police could prosecute him under Section 187 IPC. Recovery of illicit liquor. No attempt made to join independent witness from locality. Presence of some persons at place of recovery admitted by prosecution. It offended provisions of Section 100(4) Cr. P.C .. Moreover affidavit not verified in accordance with law. Accused acquitted. Recovery of illicit liquor. No independent witness joined. There were 20 shops nearby and Investigating Officer had ample opportunity to join independent witnesses. Statements of official witnesses not sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of prosecution that Police Officials had no ill-will to involve the accused in false case not tenable. Recovery of incriminating article made by Police from a place accessible to all. No inde- pendent witness from the locality produced. One of the P.W.'s a stock witness of the Police. Accused given the benefit of doubt. Accused acquitted. Recovery of Lahan and a working Still from possession of accused by Police. No inde- pendent witness joined by Police during the raid. Sarpanch of village stated that accused had been arrested by Police due to his inability to pay bribe. Material discrepancies found in statements of official witnesses. Accused acquitted. Recovery of liquor and working still. No independent witness joined by raiding party. Evidence of two petty police officials not believed in view of independent corroboration. Conviction set aside. Recovery of three bottles of whisky. Accused convicted mainly on the evidence of official witnesses. Occurrence took place in heart of city but no independent witness joined by the Police. Conviction set aside. Recovery of working still and illicit liquor by a Police party. No independent witnesses joined. Statement of Head constable that a constable was sent for Sarpanch, Chowkidar but they did not join not believed. No statement of constable brought on record that witnesses re- fused to join. Accused acquitted. Recovery of working still and illicit liquor. No effort made by Police party to join independent witness. Case based on petty officials (Head constable and constable). Not safe to convict the accused. Recovery of working still and illicit liquor. No independent witness joined. Case property not produced in the court. Accused acquitted. Non production of case property causes grave doubt about the veracity of witnesses of recovery. Recovery of working still and lahan by Police. No independent witness joined. Accused acquitted. Recovery of working still by Police. No attempt made by Police to join independent witness. It cannot be said that during day time there was no witness in the village. Not safe to rely on testimony of Police Officers alone when there were discrepancies in their evidence. Recovery of working still. No independent witness. Minor discrepancies in statements of of- ficial witnesses. No witness from public examined. In such a case minor discrepancies in statements of official witnesses assume importance and cannot be ignored. Accused acquitted. Search of house of accused conducted by the Police in contravention of mandatory provi- sions of Section 100, C.P.C.. No independent witness joined. Case resting merely upon statements of official witnesses. Defence version found to be probable. Benefit of doubt. Accused acquitted. Witnesses joined by police at the time of raid. Stock witnesses of police. No independent witness joined. Evidence of stock witnesses disbelieved by trial Court. Conviction based upon the solitary statement of police official witness set aside. Recovery of case property. There were number of houses where accused was caught but no independent witness associated. It is necessary in such like cases to associate independent, disinterested and respectable witnesses so that the investigation evokes dependability.