WI/lfllll/IIII 057580 H IIIII H/IIO CFDOD z1. IN THEWm EW-AT “mm- lagc. cRImmJ. WM N M o @?aj APPELLANT: State a: Madhya Prade ’ ‘ ‘ through Excise Inspector, BilaSpur, Tahsil & District, Bilaspur M.P. . Vs. ACCUSED RESPONDENTS‘1.)M?hendra ' , / Prafap / Singh, " s/o ‘ Jag v Mohan‘ . g Slngh, agedabout 26 years, By Caste, Thakur, R/O Gaurella, Tahsil Pendra, M ‘District ‘Bilaspuri. ‘M.P. ' ‘ 0-? A4 aJarmandlal” s/o Ram Kishan aged about 24 g‘wu .» W years, by caste Jaiswal, RIG Bhaipur, w g. % & District; , Mirjapur (UoPJ ’2‘! ‘H v p‘djg) Vijay Singh S/O Shri Hari Naraian M ' - ‘ District Singh, aged Banaras about (U.P.) 3i: Years, V r/o Kapasia 4 I J (4) Pang-u "Ram s/ovBansm; aged about 3o $$ ' years, by caste Yadav, r/o Ratanpur, ' Tahgil gmd Distrnt, Bilaspur M‘.P.‘ ~ 9; (5) Mopammad-Hamid 3/0 Yar Mohawad aged ' 16 years, ’r/e Pendra Road, Tahsil Pendre Road, Distt. Bilaspur M.P. ¥ g (6) Elsi,- s/o. Nandial [Jais§a1, aged about 25 years, r/o Belgahnana, Police Station, Ko‘ba, Tahsil‘Kofa’, District Bilaspur M.P‘.‘ ' K (7) Shiv Murat 3/0 Banarasi Prasad Jaisw‘al Liquor Contractor,=-Kota Tahsil Katy, _ District, ‘Bilaspur M}. *1: ' , , X x ‘ . gp~ " ‘l I n ’* ’5 ’i 4" XI-HC-22 3am,m,%amgt mm Cmf—Mvo. Hz; 198% mm 200 m mw mm mmmw mmar‘rwm WW ‘ %?a?%w311%$r 0509-2006 Shri Arun Sac, Govt. Advocate! Additional Public Prosecutor for the anoeHant/State. Shri Ashish Shrivastava; counsei for the respondents. Arguments heard. Judgment dictated as follow . w ORAL JUDGMENT This appeai has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the judgment 9f acquitta! dated 6"‘ May, 1.988 passed by the Chief Judiciet Magistrate. Biiaspur, in criminal case No.2384f83. (2t The brief facts are that 17-3-1985, PW-3, Excise lnspector namelv G.K. Sharma, went near e liquor shop of village Ratanpur and found that a truck bearing regis tion No.CPL-6038 was standing there. On investigation he found that ill it liquor contained in 800 bottles was kept in the truck. The driver of th truck was Mahendra Pratap Singh and the conductor was Mohammad ameed. The allegations are that this iiquor was being unloaded in he liquor shop by Panchuram and Viiav Singh. The investigating icer (PW-3), prepared a seizure memo of the aforesaid articles vide EXP/1 and after further Qanguiry: XI—HC—22 ‘rx .Av‘n *1 3am,m,f%ramg? presented the charge sheet under Section 34-A of the Excise Act. 1915 (for short ‘the Act’); (3) Charges were also framed umder the aforementioned Section of the said Act and the accusedpersons re put to triai. (4) During the course of trial, rosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 nameiy Samaru: who was Rikshaw Puller. stated that he was caiied by the persons of the Exci e Department at a particular piace, where some wet article was kept n some pot and after preparation of some documents his thumb impres ion was obtained by the said Officers. PW-2 namely Ganesh is also the itness of seizure memo (Ex.P/1), but he only says that the persons of th Excise Department had came to the liquor bhatti: where he was called nd he saw that some rubber bladder and pots were kept there and his signature was also taken on EXP/1. Other witnesses namely Babu Lal (PW-4), Suryanarayana (PW-5) and Anu_i Ram (PW-6) were also exami ed, but they deposed nothing against . the accused persons showing their nocence regarding any knowledge in connection with the said crime. RLA .&A.No. mix; Mgg mm 200 x m Wm mm mm mm$m - 2, WW§WW %3TF%1ISII%¥T \»)v7 \ \ Mr <L XI—HC—22 WW,W’§3W Wm CkH: No. HL‘Z MSX (5) The investigating Ofticer namely G.K. Sharma was examined as PW-3. It comes in his statement that on 17-8-1983, he had gone to the liquor shoo of village Ratanpur and he had seized 800 bottles of liquor loaded on a truck. He says that a seizure memo vide EXP/1 was oreoarecl and the sample of the article was also examined. He further savs that during the course of investigation: he had seized the register of Achanak Mara Forest Barrier vide EXP/2 and the same was given on suoardnama to the Barrier Guard ride EXP/3, however, it has not been stated as to what was contained in the register and what he wanted to establish from the contents of the register. (6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State argues that though the witnesses of seizure artd other witnesses have turned hostile, but the evidence of PW-3: investigating Ofhcer, is intact and the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of this Officer. (7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused persons submits that since both the witnesses of seizure have turned hostile and the version of the PW-3: Investigating Officer, is not supported by the other witnesses, therefore, the Court below has rightly ,¢,,,i~<" mm 200 W mmw WW§WW _ 3, aamm XI—HC—22 WW,®?1‘1W,1%IW Wm .C‘mqqxra‘ illl $88 mm 200 acquitted the accused persons and the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. He refers to the decision rendered in the matter of Nandu @ Nandkishore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) (2) C.Cr.J. 712 (MP). (8) i have heard iearned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the Court below. (9) So far as legal preposition is concerned: there is no doubt about it that if the evidence of the lnvesti, ting Officer is found to be trustworthy and dependable and nothing mat rial has been brought to discredit his evidence in the cross-examinati n or his evidence is otherwise not unreliable: the criminal Court woul be justified in convicting the accused on the sole testimony of the lnvesti ating Ofhcer. l am fortified in my views by a decision of the Supreme Co rt rendered in the matter of Lopchand Naruji Jat and another vs. s te of Gujarat (2004) 7 SCC 566. Normally in cases where the evid nce led by the prosecution as to a fact depends solely on the police witne ses, the courts seek corroboration as a matter of caution and not as a m tter of rule. Thus, it is only a rule of prudence, which makes the c urt to seek corroboration from an ”a,“ Haie W man mm WM$W WWEWWA WW K4 , éamm WW:WWW XI~HC-22 independent source, in such caseis while assessing the evidence cf the uoiice. But in cases where the court is satisfied that the evidence of the police can be independently relied upon then in such cases: there is no ' prohibition in law that the same cannot be accepted without an indenendent conoboration. {Please see : Praveen Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199). (10) in the present case, if we examine the testimony of PW-3 Mr. G.K. Sharma. Excise lnsnector. it would appear that on the basis of his own statement. the case comes that i300 bottles of illicit liquor were found loaded on a truck. in the said situation, at the most: he should have taken counizance aaainst the driver and cleaner of the truck, if any, but the said Officer has taken coanizance in e matter against as many as seven oersons including the licensee of the liquor shop and also against the employees of the liquor shop whe except the seizure of the liquor from the truck, there was no positive e idence in this case. 0n this count, the testimony of the Investigating Ofti rjwho intended to implicate more and more persons even without prope evidence against them)is not reliable and is not solely dependable so a to warrant conviction of the accused WA persons on the basis of his sole te lmonv. mm a 200 m mam WW mmmw WW§WW WW .7 5 f %3T%qané¥r m m: msH-‘C‘OUET OFUUDiCAIgE AT BILA l Xl—HC‘22 mam mm mmmtm WW§WW WW -6" w aaWwéw (11} in the facts and circumstances of this case, when the soie testimonv of the Investigating tcer is not found to be trustworthy for awarding conviction to the accus d persons, in the opinion 0f this Court: the trial Coutt has rightiy acquitt the accused persons of the charges r framed under Section 34-A of the ct. (1 2) in the result, the appeal iii d by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Cour has no merits. The same fails and is dismissed. The accused persons are on bail; their bail bonds are v/ cancelled and the sureties are dis :harged. /r/y/ Gowri (the w) @%J¥ A”; {b