Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.56 seconds)A.Abdul Rasheed vs The State Of Kerala
According to
me, the above submission is untenable considering the fact
that, other than PW1, to prove the seizure and arrest of the
appellant/accused, the prosecution has already cited and
examined an independent evidence who is none other than
the conductor of the bus in question, who was examined as
PW3. As usual PW3 turned hostile towards the prosecution.
However, he had admitted his signature in Ext.P2 seizure
mahazar. This Court had an occasion to consider such a
situation in a decision reported in Abdul Rasheed Vs.
State of Kerala (2008(3) KLT 150), wherein it has held
that "If testimony of official witnesses is blemishless and
free from suspicion and inspires confidence hostility shown
by ill-motivated independent witnesses is of no
consequence." In the present case, the defence has
miserably failed to point out any contradiction or infirmities
in the evidence of PW1 so as to disbelieve him. So,
according to me, there is no error in the approach of the
Crl.A.No.1082 of 2005
11
court below in relying upon the evidence of PW1, whose
evidence is supported by contemporary evidence like Ext.P1
arrest memo and Ext.P2 seizure mahazar, in support of his
finding towards the search of the appellant/accused and
seizure of the contraband article from his possession and
his arrest.
1