State vs Soniya & Anr. on 27 November, 2019
6. PW3 and PW5 who were recovery witnesses stated that there were
houses near the place where accused was found selling illicit liquor. PW3
further stated that he had asked the neighbours to join investigation but
they refused to join. PW3 further stated that he had asked the name of
FIR No. 114/18 State Vs. Soniya 9 of 14
PS Anand Parbat
those persons but they refused to disclose their name. It is relevant to
note that no notice was given to any person who refused to join the
investigation. It is relevant here to note that above recovery witness had
not mentioned the description of the persons who had allegedly refused
to join the investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that
recovery witnesses / police officials had served any notice under Section
160 CrPC upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. Thus,
the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by
recovery witnesses who were police officials to join public witnesses in
the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for
joining public witnesses appears to have been made. Section 100 (4) of
the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to
join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in
the present case. Joining of independent witnesses would have given
credibility to the recovery proceeding. Therefore, non joining of
independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.