EMPEROR Vs. DIPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application on behalf of the Local Government against an order of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur allowing the appeals of the three respondents in a case under Section 110, Criminal P.C.

(2.) Proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., were taken in the trial Court against Jagrup, Girdhari, Dipu, Raghunath and Harnandan. They were all bound over to be of good behaviour for a period of one year by the learned Deputy Magistrate. Against that order appeals were preferred by the above named persons in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. He came to the conclusion that the case was established against Harnandan and. Jagrup and their appeals were dismissed. As regards Dipu, Raghunath and Girdhari, he found that the prosecution evidence did not justify their being bound over, and he, therefore set aside order of the trial Court and discharged these three persons. The revision application has been made against the order of the learned Sessions Judge so far as it relates to Dipu, Raghunath and Girdhari. Girdhari is still absconding and so his case will be considered by this Court, when he is served with a notice of this revision application. We have only to consider the case of the other two respondents, Dipu and Raghunath. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on both sides we are clearly of opinion that the order of discharge passed by the lower appellate Court is wrong and cannot be sustained.

(3.) It appears that 59 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of these 21 were police officials, 2 were Mukhias and 1 a Sarpanch. The learned Sessions Judge expressed the view that the evidence of the police officials, and of Mukhias and of Sarpanch, whom he styled as "Quasi police witnesses" should be ignored altogether as they could not be considered to be quite independent. In our opinion this is an altogether wrong view to take. Mukhias and Sarpanches are respectable persons and they are appointed to these offices because of their respectability. It is totally wrong to describe them as "quasi police witnesses." On account of the position held by these men in villages in which they reside, they are in a far better position to know about the bad characters residing in their villages. It is altogether absurd to start with a presumption against them. The proper way of judging the evidence of a witness is to consider the statement made by him and then to arrive at a conclusion whether he has given true evidence or not. No presumption, should be made against him merely on the ground that he happens to be a Mukhia or a Sarpanch. The learned Sessions Judge has discarded from consideration the evidence of a large number of police officials solely on the ground that they belong to that department. This view is also utterly wrong and wholly unjustified. All that we need say is that it possesses the merit of novelty. The police officials very often are in a far better position to depose about the character of a man than witnesses who may be living in different villages and who may have been examined in defence by the accused. The right way of judging the evidence of police officials is to consider their statements on merits and then to determine whether they have given true evidence or otherwise. There is no justification whatsoever for discarding the evidence of a police official simply on the ground that he belongs to the police. There are and there may be a large member of cases in which the evidence of the police official may be more convicing and which an accused person may not be able to rebut by the production of a large number of witnesses.