Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16479 of 2005 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal,Diwakar Rai Sharma,Salman Ahmad,Saqib Meezan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 75 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 186, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of Damge to Public Property Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First, Aligarh.
3. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant is that the only witness produced before Court below is a Police witness which cannot be relied.
4. In my view, submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant is thoroughly misconceived. Presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. 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.
5. As a matter of rule, there can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during police raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the evidence of police officer is found acceptable, it would be an erroneous proposition that court must reject prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness was examined. In Pradeep Narayan Madqaonkar & others vs. State of Maharashtra 1995 (4) SCC 255, it was held:
"Indeed, the evidence of the official (police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are, either interested in the investigation of the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation, requires greater care to appreciate their testimony."
6. In Balbir Singh vs. State 1996 (11) SCC 139, Court has repelled a similar contention based on non-examination of independent witnesses. The same legal position has been reiterated time and again by Court vide Paras Ram vs. State of Haryana 1992 (4) SCC 662, Sama Alana Abdulla vs. State of Gujarat 1996 (1) SCC 427 and Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) SCC 589.
7. In State of U.P. v. Zakaullah 1998 Cri. L.J. 863 in para-10, it is said:
"The necessity for "independent witness" in cases involving police raid or police search is incorporated in the statute not for the purpose of helping the indicted person to bypass the evidence of those panch witnesses who have had some acquaintance with the police or officers conducting the search at some time or the other. Acquaintance with the police by itself would not destroy a man's independent outlook. In a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the police. But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent persons. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police action. The requirement to have independent witness to corroborate the evidence of the police is to be viewed from a realistic angle. Every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent of the police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever."
8. Referring to some earlier decisions, Court in Girja Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 held:
"It is well-settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the 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 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 applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. 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." (para 25)
9. In view of above settled legal position I find no force in the only submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant and the same is hereby rejected.
10. No other point has been argued.
11. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 AK