T. CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 226 of 2008 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. He was prosecuted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution case was as follows:

(2.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail. My jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. The petitioner only canvasses the validity of the findings of the lower authorities on evidence. He can succeed in his attempt only if he proves before me that the appreciation of evidence is perverse. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no inviolable rule that there cannot be any conviction on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone, provided the evidence given is convincing enough for prosecution. I am of opinion that in this case, PW1 and PW2, who apprehended the petitioner while he was transiting the arrack, gave convincing evidence in support of the prosecution case. The fact that the attesting witness turned hostile does not in any way mitigate the value of their evidence. In fact, PW3 did not have any case that he signed the mahazar under compulsion from the Excise Officers. He admitted having signed the same also. Therefore, as found by the lower authorities, the evidence of PW3, although he turned hostile in some aspects, to a great extent supported the prosecution case. In the cross examination of the other two witnesses also the petitioner could not pick any holes in their evidence and they withstood the cross examination admirably. That being so, I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts.