No Bar On Considering Evidence Of Official Witnesses If It's Free From Suspicion: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that there is no bar that evidence of official witnesses is to be discarded, and if the evidence is beyond all suspicious reasons, there is no reason for ignoring the evidence.

A single judge of Justice Rajendra Badamikar dismissed the appeal filed by accused D B Ramesh and upheld the order of the trial and revision court convicting him for offences under section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ramesh was arrested by the excise inspector on raiding his house wherein the accused had allegedly stored 30 litres of jaggery wash and 2 litres of illicit liquid in his bed room though he had the knowledge that the said liquor is not safe for human consumption.

In his appeal challenging the conviction it was contended that the recovery itself is not proved by the prosecution as both the panch witnesses have turned hostile and hence, the presumption under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"), cannot be made applicable.

Further, it was argued that the rest of the witnesses are official witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated and both the Courts below have ignored this material aspect and erroneously convicted the accused.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying though panch witnesses had turned hostile, they admit their signatures on the mahazar and material objects and further they admit their presence at the spot. Hence, it is evident that they are won over by accused and hence they are not supporting the case of the prosecution.

Findings:

On going through the records the bench noted that there is no serious dispute of the fact that the house where the raid was conducted was standing in the name of the wife of the accused and the accused was residing there.

Then it said “PWs.1 and 2 are the Mahazar witnesses and both these witnesses have turned hostile. They denied regarding they were accompanying the Excise officials for the raid and drawing mahazar in their presence. However, they admitted their signatures on Mahazar and they have also admitted their presence in photographs. It is not the case of the defence that photographs were snapped in the Excise Office. There is no explanation from PW1 and PW2 as to why they were compelled to sign.”

Following which it expressed, “Their cross examination and admission regarding their presence in photographs clearly establish that they were present at the time of drawing the mahazar and now, they are intentionally giving evidence against the documents in order to save the skin of the accused.”

Noting that PW3 is an Excise Guard and PW5 is the Excise Inspector who conducted the raid, the bench said, “Though these two witnesses have been cross examined at length, nothing was elicited except normal denial. There is no reason for discarding their evidence.”

Following which it held “By the evidence of PWs.3 and 5, the recovery of the prohibited materials is established and that it is not fit for human consumption. As such, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused and there is no bar that the evidence of the official witnesses is to be discarded.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: D B Ramesh @ Doni Ramesh And State by Excise Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 779 OF 2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Date of Order: 07-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sachin B S For petitioner

HCGP H S Shankar for R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order