Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2007
The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of its judgments has held that
testimony of police official stands on equal footing as that of any other witness
and his evidence should also be appreciated and weighed in the similar manner
as that of any other witness. There is no rule of law whereby the police official can
be straight away termed as dishonest witness. However, the court should be extra
cautious at the time of believing the uncorroborated testimony of police official.
This does not necessarily mean that the conviction of the accused can not be
based on the sole testimony of police official. I find support from the findings
given by Hon'ble Apex court in the case titled as Girja Prasad v. State of MP
(AIR 2007 SC 3106) wherein it was held that :
"It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the
State Vs. Muzafar Hussain & Ors. FIR No. 325/93, PS. Model Town,U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,
Page No.9
touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given
case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of
complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses
should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The
presumption that every person acts honestly applied as much in favour of a
police official as any other persons. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of
police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of
law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of
police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The
rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the
court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth,
conviction can be based on such evidence".