0

The Karnataka High Court stated that there is no prohibition on considering the evidence provided by official witnesses if it is free from suspicion

Blog ,

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

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 779 OF 2020

Date of Order: 07-07-2023

CORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE Rajendra Badamikar

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has emphasized that there is no restriction to reject the evidence of official witnesses, and if their testimony is entirely free from any doubt, there is no justification for disregarding it.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In his appeal challenging the conviction, it was argued that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery, mainly because both the panch witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the presumption under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act was contended to be inapplicable. Additionally, it was asserted that the rest of the witnesses were official witnesses, and their evidence was not corroborated. Both lower courts were accused of disregarding this critical aspect and erroneously convicting the accused.

The prosecution opposed the plea by stating that although the panch witnesses turned hostile, they still admitted to their signatures on the mahazar (inventory) and the existence of the material objects. The prosecution claimed that the accused had influenced the witnesses to not support their case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court 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.

The court examined the records and found that there was no serious dispute over the fact that the house raided belonged to the accused’s wife, and the accused was residing there.

Regarding the witnesses, PWs.1 and 2, who were the Mahazar witnesses, turned hostile during cross-examination. However, they admitted their signatures on the Mahazar and their presence in the photographs taken during the raid. The court concluded that they were intentionally providing false evidence to protect the accused.

The court found PW3 (Excise Guard) and PW5 (Excise Inspector) credible, as their testimonies were not challenged significantly during cross-examination. Their evidence established the recovery of prohibited materials and their unsuitability for human consumption. The court held that the lower courts were right in convicting the accused based on the evidence provided by the official witnesses.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to view Judgement

0

Acquittal granted by Punjab high court charged under section 3 of the ST and SC Act,due to inadequate evidence produced by prosecution

Blog , ,

TITLE: Rajbir Singh v State of Punjab   

Decided On-:June 7, 2023

CRA-S-2323-SB-2006 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekawat

INTRODUCTION- For the offense covered by Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, Rajbir Singh was found guilty. The accused prays for acquittal

FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR in the present case was filed by Swaranjit Kaur, the wife of Caste Majhabi Sikh Baljit Singh, a resident of Bhagwanpura. She had three children and was married to Baljit Singh for 13 years, the complainant claimed. Both she and her husband were working manually. Around 8:00 p.m. on May 22, 2005, the complainant’s son Karampal Singh, who was about 10 years old, and she were crossing the street in front of Kaka Singh’s home to get milk from Bhikar Singh when they saw Rajbir Singh, the appellant, standing there while intoxicated. When he saw the complainant, he immediately started abusing her.

She went to get milk, but she didn’t say anything because she was afraid. Rajbir Singh, the appellant, met her in front of Kaka Singh’s house as she was walking back to her house. He called the complainant “chuhriya” and warned her and other “dheds” that if they failed to harm the Mazhabis, they would be expelled from the community. Rajbir Singh, the appellant, raised his shirt in front of the complainant and hurled crude insults at her despite her attempts to explain. She didn’t say a word as she and her son returned to their home.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Four witnesses were questioned by the prosecution to support the charge.

According to the FIR, Swaranjit Kaur, the complainant, who served as PW-1, was questioned in order to support the prosecution’s case. She claimed that Rajbir Singh met her as she was walking back from getting milk, close to Kaka Singh’s home. Rajbir Singh referred to her as “chuhri” and “dhedni” and demanded that she clean the dung from the cattle heads and trash at his house, but she refused. At the time, Rajbir Singh, the appellant, was intoxicated.

She asked the accused to keep quiet, but he spoke a lot before raising his shirt. Following the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, the appellant’s statement was recorded in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant claimed that he had been the victim of a planted case. No incident had occurred in the village, but rather, there was a dispute over Jumlan Malkan land between Harijans and the village’s farmers.

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney vehemently argued that there is no evidence of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act against the current appellant. Since no one was present at the scene of the incident, it was impossible to confirm that it had actually happened. In a location that is “public view”. Aside from that, the prosecution did not present any other evidence.

“This Court finds sufficient force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a dispute relating to land between the members of the scheduled caste and the agriculturists of the village. The prosecution examined the complainant Swaranjit Kaur as PW-1. Even she was subjected to cross-examination and she was evasive in her replies, while she was cross-examined by the defense counsel.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view Judgement

 

1 2 3