NEELAKANTAN KUNJU RAMAN Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge, confirming the conviction and sentence entered against the accused petitioners by the trial Magistrate. Both the lower courts have come to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence against the accused is reliable and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The charge against them is under S.8 (1) (a), (b) and (g) of Act 13 of 1950. According to the prosecution the accused were found to be illicitly manufacturing arrack when a search was made of their house. That search was made on getting secret information that the accused were engaged in illicit manufacture of arrack. The vessels used for such manufacture were recovered along with one bottle of arrack and a seizure list and mahazar were prepared. Besides the excise officers who conducted the search two independent witnesses also attested the mahazar. Pw. 1 is the excise officer who conducted the search and Pw. 2 is the preventive officer who had accompanied Pw-1. Both of them have sworn to the truth and correctness of the search and the mahazar. The argument on behalf of the accused petitioners is that the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 cannot alone be sufficient to convict the accused. There is no such rule of law even though independent corroboration is generally insisted on in such cases. In the present case there is such corroboration furnished by the evidence of Pws-3 and 4 who are the attestors to the search mahazar. No doubt they have been won over by the accused at the trial stage. All the same Pws-3 and 4 had to admit that they have attested the mahazar which contains a categorical statement that the search was made in their presence. In view of such an admission made by them, no great weight can be made to their statement that they attested the mahazar at a different place and on the next day. Pw-3 has admitted that he too was present when the excise officers were conducting a search in the house of the accused. If so, it is not likely that he would have attested the mahazar without satisfying himself about its truth. The lower courts were right in concluding that Pws. 3 and 4 were deliberately trying to help the accused. Such a change of attitude on the part of the independent attestors cannot by itself destroy the effect of the prosecution evidence. The search was conducted in the manner prescribed by law and the mahazar was attested by two respectable persons of the locality. On a consideration of all the circumstances, it is clear that the version given by Pws. 1 and 2 is true and it has been substantially corroborated by the search mahazar and the evidence of Pws. 3 and 4. The conviction entered against the accused and the sentence awarded to them on the strength of such evidence do not call for any interference.

(2.) This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.