GURRAM RAMANJANEYULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel on record. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that except the evidence of P.W.4, there is no other independent evidence relating to seizure and P.Ws.1 and 2, the punch witnesses were declared hostile and hence the conviction recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Botcha Raju v. State Represeted by Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circled

(2.) Percontra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Mohd. Omsan Shaheed, would sumit that merely because the punch witnesses were declared hostile, by that itself acquittal cannot be recorded. The evidence of Investigating Officer, if found to be trustworthy can definitely be relied upon. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra Kalyani Ji Mavji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-IP and also in Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P..

(3.) Heard both the Counsel