Evidence of police officials

Evidence of a police witness is as reliable as any other witness provided that no enmity exists between them and the accused.

High Court declined to accept explanation given by investigating officer that independent persons were available but they were not willing to give evidence as it was no excuse for excluding such persons without legal justification

Justice was not to be done only in Courts

Other persons entrusted with powers were also responsible to do justice at their level

Responsible officer of Anti-Narcotic Force, invested with powers of investigation was also obliged in law to do justice and conduct fair trial and independent investigation

Prosecution failed to prove that Charas was in safe custody for the period and positive report of Chemical Examiner could not prove case of prosecution

Reasonable doubts existed in the case of prosecution, it was not necessary that there should many circumstances creating doubts

If there was a single circumstance which had created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused, then accused was entitled to the benefit as not a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge as prosecution failed to prove its case

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Police witnesses were as reliable as any other witness unless any illwill or enmity had been attributed to them.

Taking/accepting of illegal gratification itself was a heinous offence and a serious misconduct requiring imposition of major penalty

Civil servant who was found guilty of the offence of accepting illegal gratification could not be retained in the civil service and major penalty had to be imposed on him.

Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases has been excluded and non-association of any private person as witness is not a serious defect to vitiate conviction

Police officials are competent witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are police officials

Evidence of police official must be straightforward and confidence inspiring

Prosecution witnesses being police officials by itself cannot be considered a valid reason to discard their statements/evidence.

Police officials are as good as private witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are police officials, unless the defence succeeds in denting their statements and proves their mala fide or ill-will against the accused.

Prosecution case was that a 30-bore pistol loaded with five live bullets was recovered from the possession of the accused, for which, he had no license to keep

Evidence of police officials was as good as that of a private person, however, in a case of recovery of pistol where the fate of an accused person hinged upon the testimony of police officials alone, it was essential to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent persons at the time of recovery

Conviction or acquittal of an accused person depended upon the credibility of the witnesses as assessed by the court but where it was possible for the police officials to call independent witnesses to act as mashir but they deliberately avoided, the court had to be very careful in weighing such evidence.

Prosecution witnesses being Police Officials by itself could not be considered as a valid reason to discard their statements.

Evidence of police officials was as good as of any other public witness in absence of any malice or mala fide of police officials.

Where the fate of an accused in the case of recovery of unlicensed arms, hinged upon the testimony of Police Officials alone, it was essential to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent person at the time of recovery

Conviction or acquittal of an accused, would depend upon the credibility of the witnesses; as assessed by the court, but where it was possible for the Police Officials to call independent witnesses to act as Mashir, but they deliberately avoided, the court had to be very careful in weighing such evidence

Judicial approach, had to be cautious in dealing such type of evidence.