GEORGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case is that the second appellant purchased 200 bags of non-levy cement from Cochin Mercantile Corporation an 14-11-1984 and the same was stored in the godown of the joint bulginess belonging to both he appellants end sixty begin out of it was sold to C. Wg. 1 to. 6.

(2.) PWS. l to 11 were examined and Exts. P1 to P21 were marked. PWs. 10 and U are the iovesngetirg officers red PWS. l to 9 are the witnesses examined to prove the offered. Except PWS. 4. 6. 7. 10 and 11 all other prosecution witnesses turned be stile. Pw 5 was declared hostile only in re-examination. Therefore the recurrent en hi all of the appellants was that conviction was without any legal evidence at all.

(3.) IT is true that moral conviction. however strong. cannot be substitute for legal evidence for a conviction. But in this case there are grounds not only for moral conviction. Legal evidence is also there even though the appellants. with their influence. were able to win over most of the prosecution witnesses. IT is clear that all the hostile witnesses were swearing against their conscience solely for the purpose of helping the appellants and the reason is also evident. As held in Bhagwan Singh v. State of haryana (1976 SC 202) cited by the counsel for the appellants themselves. characterising a witness as hostile does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony. What is involved in such cases is only a rule of caution total there should be corroboration by other reliable evidence.