Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Joining of Independent witness when not necessary. - Public witness should be joined or not - It always varies with facts and circumstances of each case - If in a particular case, official witnesses are reliable and on the basis of their testimony an order of sentence is passed, it will not be illegal - But one cannot lose sight of peculiar facts of each case - Cogent reasons should be forthcoming where public witness is not joined and examined. Achhar Singh V. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 778(P&H) Police recovered Lahan and Illicit liquor on receipt of secret information - Recovery effected in mand of river - Joining of independent witness could not be insisted upon because police received the secret information at a point where no independent witness was available. Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 766(P&H) Recovery of working still and Lahan on receipt of secret information - Independent witness not joined - It will not affect prosecution case if plausible explanation is available for the same - In the present case it was explained that public witnesses were not immediately available and had the Police party waited, accused could not have been caught red-handed - Explanation satisfactory. Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 145(P&H) Recovery of working still and Lahan on receipt of secret information by Police - No independent witness joined although information was received at Bus Stand and people were nearby - Disclosure statement also not witnessed by independent witness - Conviction set aside - Ipse-dixit of Investigating Officers that effort was made to join independent witness but none came forward cannot be believed. Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 776(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor on receipt of secret information - No independent witness joined - Conviction of accused on basis of evidence of official witness - No infirmity - There is no rule that the prosecution version whenever it may be based exclusively on official witnesses must, as such, be rejected - All that perhaps can be said is that in this situation, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be scrutinised with more care and caution. Dipa Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 382(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor on receipt of secret information - No independent witness joined - Conviction validly based on evidence of official witnesses - When prosecution case depends upon official witnesses, all that is required to be done is to scrutinise the same with due care and caution - It cannot be said that wherever prosecution version might depend upon statement of official witnesses, the same shall be rejected unless corroborated by independent witness. Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 337 (P&H) Accused found distilling illicit liquor - 50 Kgs. of Lahan recovered - Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 - Conviction upheld - Non-examination of independent witness - No ground to set aside conviction - Independent witnesses do not support the Police Officials for several reasons - Non-examination of independent witnesses only fastens the responsibility upon the Court to scrutinise the evidence with more care and caution Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 735(P&H) No independent witness joined - No ground to acquit the accused - In case Investigating Of- ficer had taken steps to join independent witnesses from the village, the very purpose of secret information would have been defeated as there was specific information that accused was indulging in distillation of illicit liquor. Saheg Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 623(P&H) There cannot be any mathematical formula that independent witness has to or has not to be joined - There was no material contradiction which can go to show that case of prosecution was not true - This was a case where illicit liquor was being manufactured and apparatus was also seized - Conviction upheld. Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 729(P&H) Trial / Raid / Independent witnesses. Petitioner was found working a still and distilling illicit liquor when the police party was just passing near the river and noticed smoke coming from the reeds. It was not a case where the police party had prior intimation and a raid was con- ducted. Joining of independent witnesses was not necessary. Recovery of illicit liquor by police patrol party. No independent witness joined. Prosecution case based on official witnesses. If accused is apprehended when police party was on patrol, it could not be expected that police party should have joined independent witnesses. Recovery of illicit liquor at thorough fare. No independent witness joined as no witness was available at relevant time. Simply because place of recovery was thoroughfare, did not enjoin any duty on Investigating Officer that he should have waited for some independent witness and only then apprehended the accused. Moreover respectable persons feel shy to become witnesses in Police cases of such type of recovery of illicit liquor or narcotic etc. Conviction under Excise Act challenged on the ground that no independent witness joined the Police party. Accused was apprehended when Police party was on patrol. It could not be expected that Patrol Party should have joined independent witness.