The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there is no legal presumption that the evidence of police officers as a witness cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some independent source but as a common practice if the evidence of police officials inspires confidence and suffers from no infirmity or malice the same can be accepted for proving the guilt of the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that on the bus stand two persons were seen trying to flee away and intercepted on suspicion. Upon search, a pistol with magzine was recovered from their possession. They disclosed the name of the person to whom the pistol belonged. No license for the same was produced, therefore, the FIR was lodged. The trial court convicted all three people; however, an appeal was filed one accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by this, the present revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence occurred during the daytime and at a bus stand, then also the search and seizure were not conducted in the presence of independent witnesses as required under Section 100 of the Cr.p.c., which does not inspire confidence. It was furthermore submitted that all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. Also, the weapon was not sealed on the spot.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the Petitioner was apprehended on the spot, the seizure list was prepared and no independent local witnesses were ready to become witnesses of search and seizure. It was furthermore submitted that there is no rule of law or prudence that the evidence of police personnel cannot be believed to be true unless it is corroborated by any other independent source.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that no independent person is available or even if available is not willing to be a party to such search. It's also possible that after participating in the search, these people eventually develop hostility. If it is discovered that the concerned police officer did not even attempt to enlist the help of a local resident who was admittedly available to witness the recovery, it will have an impact on the police officer's credibility, but not on the admissibility of his evidence. In any of these scenarios, the testimony of the search officer cannot be disregarded based solely on the fact that no impartial and respectable witnesses were questioned to corroborate the search. The court relied upon the judgment titled Saheb Singh versus State of Punjab (1996).
It was furthermore observed that although there is no legal presumption that police evidence cannot be trusted unless it is verified by an independent third party, it is common to accept police evidence as proof of an accused person's guilt if it instills confidence and shows no signs of malice or infirmity.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the judgment passed by the courts below.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Revision Petition.
Case Title: Md. Murshid V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 1013 of 2015
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
