ANJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On information received the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hosur, P.W. 1, searched the premises of the accused in the presence of Mahazar witnesses and recovered from an almirah inside the room in which the accused was sleeping, a bottle containing arrack of 4 drams. The accused was arrested. The arrack bottle was seized under a Mahazar and a charge sheet was laid under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act. In the course of the enquiry the examination of the search witnesses was dispensed with on the ground that they have been gained over. The case for the accused was that he had been implicated in a false case.

(2.) On his behalf the accused examined two witnesses and the evidence of both of them has been found by the lower Court to be absolutely unhelpful. But this need not detain us because we have got to see whether on the evidence on record the prosecution has affirmatively and satisfactorily brought home the offence to this accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate held that in his opinion the search had been conducted properly and that there was nothing to show that the accused had been falsely implicated. He writes :

(3.) The only point of substance urged in this revision is that the evidence of the Sub-Inspector has not been corroborated and that it is neither legally sound nor justifiable to base a conviction on the uncorroborated and interested evidence of the investigating officer alone. I am not aware of any decision or law which requires the Sub-Inspector's evidence, like that of an accomplice, to be corroborated in material particulars before it can be acted upon. The evidence of the Sub-Inspector will succeed or fail exactly like that of any other material witness. We need not attach a double dose of original sin to a Police Officer and begin with the presumption that a Sub-Inspector cannot be believed unless his evidence is proved to be true by corroborative evidence.