GUNDRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order dated 24-8-1978 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed but his conviction was altered from section 54 (d) to 54 (c) and further his conviction was maintained under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are these. That on 6-8-78 Kalyan Singh, Excise Inspector went near the field of Swaroop Singh and Moola Singh. He saw that one Nanak and the petitioner were manufacturing illicit liquor. The petitioner was putting fuel wood in the oven. The petitioner and Nanak on seeing the Excise party ran away. The Excise Party recovered the working still and some illicit wash and sealed them. At this stage it may be observed that the only evidence about the identity of the petitioner regarding the manufacture of illicit liquor in the manner stated by the prosecution is P. W. 4 Ramratan.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is extremely unsafe in the circumstances of the case to rely on the bare sole oral testimony of P. W. 4 Ramratan to find the petitioner guilty. It is unsafe to convict the petitioner in these circumstances. There is no circumstantial evidence against the petitioner to corroborate the statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan and it could be a case of mistaken identity. This aspect of the case totally escaped the notice of the trial court and the appellate courts resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.