VINAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 25.04.2008, on credible information, P.W.4 to P.W.6 in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 conducted the raid on the shed in which the petitioner was illegally indulged in preparing the arrack and found in total 444 bottles having different names on the bottles i.e., Choice whisky, Bagpiper Whisky, Windsor Whisky and also arrack packets and the same was seized in the presence of panch witnesses and mahazar was drawn. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and also relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the offences and hence an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the panch witnesses turned hostile and P.W.3 carried the seized articles to FSL. P.W.4 to P.W.6 are the star witness of the prosecution and they are the interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P.7 RTC extract, which is standing in the name of Shevu S/o Heeru Lamani and he has not been examined before the Court to speak that whether he had sold the land to the revision petitioner. When the land is not standing in the name of this petitioner, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused and the Appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence it requires interference of this Court.