CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Charan Singh, petitioner was caught red handed on May 23, 1988 at 6 p.m. by P.W.3 Om Prakash Yadav, Excise Inspector and P.W. 2 Rati Ram, Constable while he was manufacturing illicit liquor, an excisable article, on a working still at the bank of a river near a hillock situated at about 1 k.m. away from village Baghoda under Police Station Ghoda, District Alwar. He was tried for having committed the offence under Ss. 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the said offence and convicted him as such. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for two months more. In appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. Hence, this petition under S. 397, Cr.P.C.

(2.) Mr. Biri Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the findings recorded by the two Courts below about the guilt of the petitioner were perverse inasmuch as no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel further submitted that since the sample liquor was forwarded to the chemical analyst as late as after 20 days of the seizure thereof, the testimony of P.W. 3 Om Prakash Yadav, Excise Inspector and his peon P.W. 2 Rati Ram should not have been believed and relied upon for conviction of the petitioner as they were interested persons. I find no force in this argument.

(3.) It is true that P.W.4 Jaimal Singh who was examined as an independent witness in the present case had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. But that hardly affect the worth and value of the sworn testimony of P. W. 2 Rati Ram, Constable and P.W. 3 Om Prakash Yadav, Excise Inspector. Both these witnesses had stated that on May 23, 1988 when they were on patrolling duties they had seen smoke coming up from behind a hillock and when they with their team, had reached there they noticed the petitioner manufacturing illicit liquor on a working still. They clearly stated that a drum full of liquor wash was placed on a "chulha" under which fire was burning and with the help of a plastic tube which was fixed with the help of "Babri Mitti" the liquor was being taken to a rubber tube. The witnesses further told that they had apprehended the petitioner on the spot and seized all the relevant articles of the working still. P. W. 3 Om Prakash Yadav has proved the drum as Article-1, Babri Mitti as Article-2, Degchi Silver as Article-3, rubber tube as Article-4, the liquor bottle as Article-5, the wash bottle as Article-6, a piece of Bhatti as Article - 7 and the piece of burnt wood as Article-8. No material contradiction could be extracted in their statements on their cross-examination. Both these witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner. P.W. 3 Om Prakash Yadav, Excise Inspector, had even stated that he did not know the petitioner from before. He further stated that since he had remained busy in other official work he could send the sample of liquor and the wash, seized from the possession of the petitioner, only after about 20 days. The evidence led by both these witnesses was quite consistent and inspired confidence. They being on their official duties of patrolling was not unnatural or abnormal. They had felt attracted towards the place of occurrence on seeing the smoke rising in the sky. They had found illicit liquor being manufactured on a workable still. They had seized all the relevant articles on the spot and such articles were also produced in the Court. There is thus nothing in their testimonies to disbelieve them. Unlike some of the enactments under the English law where a particular number of witnesses is required to prove the existence of a fact Indian law of evidence does not insist upon the quantity of evidence to prove a fact. Quality and not quantity of evidence is required to prove the existence of fact under our laws. This principle has been given a statutory recognition under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in S. 134 which says that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. That being the position of the requirement of evidence to prove all facts under our laws, conviction may safely be based on the testimony of a single witness if such testimony is found of sterling worth. If in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the evidence of a solitary witness is acceptable and reliable the conviction of an accused may be based on the testimony of such single witness.