Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)State Of Jharkhand And Ors. vs Muzaffar Hussain on 4 April, 2006
5. PW3 ASI. Balwinder Singh, PW6 Ct. Suresh Kumar and PW7 Ct. Sukh
Lal are the recovery witnesses of the stolen aluminum plates that were recovered
on 12/10/93. The said recovery witnesses have consistently deposed and
corroborated/proved the chain of events as alleged by the prosecution that
State Vs. Muzafar Hussain & Ors. FIR No. 325/93, PS. Model Town,U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC,
Page No.4
resulted in the respective recoveries of the stolen articles from the possession of
the accused persons. They have proved the seizure memo of the stolen articles
that were recovered from the accused Raju @ Delhi, as Ex.PW3/A. They have
also proved the seizure memo of the stolen articles that were recovered from the
possession of the accused Raju S/o Sh. Maya Ram and the accused Muzafer
Hussain as Ex.PW3/B. The seizure memo vide which the stolen property that
was recovered from the accused Bhoop Singh was proved as Ex.PW3/H. The
said witnesses have testified that all the accused persons were arrested in their
presence and they correctly identified all the accused persons in the court. PW3
ASI. Balwinder Singh identified the case property during his deposition.
Section 428 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
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".
Joseph vs State Of Karala on 3 December, 2002
However, the recovery witness/IO PW5 SI.
Ram Singh was duly crossexamined by all the accused persons, but despite
cross examination his credibility could not be impeached by them. It is a settled
principle of law that the evidence is to be weighed and not counted. The
conviction can be based on the trustworthy/credible sole testimony of the
prosecution witness. The findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as
Joseph V. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 are relevant and reproduced as
under :
"When there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to
be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of
the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. Section 134
of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall
in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for
a Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye
witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the
evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with
probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the
prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should
be wholly reliable.
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1