State vs . Shanker on 22 March, 2022
10. As per the testimony of PW1, the seal used to seal the
case property was handed over to him by the IO after use,
however no seal handing over taking over memo was prepared.
Further, the fact that the seal was handed over to PW1 after use
by the IO was not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 CrPC and
he admitted this fact in his cross examination .As per the
testimony of PW1, the case property was taken to Malkhana in
his private car but this fact is not mentioned anywhere in the
chargesheet . Thus , the veracity of the case of the state showing
recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused is
doubtful. The seal which was allegedly used to seal the case
property throughout remained in possession of the police
personnel, who are interested witnesses in this trial .There is a
question mark on the mode by which the case property was
transported to the malkhana. The IO had not deposed anything
regarding the mode of transport of the case property to the
Malkhana in his evidence whereas PW1 had stated that he
took the case property to malkhana in his private car .Under
what circumstances did PW1 get his private car to the spot are
also questionable. The said circumstances, coupled with the fact
FIR No. 124/18 PS Kirti Nagar State Vs. Shankar. Page- 10 of 11
that the IO did not care to include public witnesses to the
investigation, either as arrest witnesses or as witnesses to the
recovery process have raised a doubt on the truthfulness of
prosecution's case.