Lataben Manilal Luka And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 2 August, 2006
5. Shri Gondalia has submitted that the aforesaid contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and glaring discrepancy in the case of the prosecution should persuade this Court to believe that the entire case is got up or at least the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond doubt. Though, there is no specific contention with regard to any breach of mandatory provisions but the deposition of various witnesses especially the Investigating Officer, the person who weighed the muddamal article and the panch witnesses would go to show that even the mandatory provisions were not complied with. From the depositions of two witnesses namely the person who weighed the contraband article and the panch witnesses, have shown that the panchnama was drawn right in the police station itself and it was not drawn at the place of offence as alleged and as the panchnama was not drawn at the scene of offence, there remains doubt about the compliance with the mandatory provisions. Shri Gondalia has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Lakhiram Narandas Bawasadhu v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. p.585 in support of his submission that when there are such glaring contradictions in the prosecution case, then it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt at least have been accorded to the appellants.