The last plank of submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants is that no independent witness has been
examined to substantiate the allegation of the prosecution.
It is worth to note that Labh Singh and Harvinder Singh
have not been examined by the prosecution. The
explanation has been offered that the investigating agency
was of the view that they had been won over. The said
explanation has been totally substantiated inasmuch as
they have been examined as defence witnesses. In such a
situation, no adverse inference can be drawn for
non-examination of the said witnesses. That apart, the case
of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground
that independent witnesses have not been examined when,
on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds
that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy.
When the evidence of the official witnesses are trustworthy
and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on
the basis of their evidence. In this regard, it is profitable to
reproduce a passage from State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v.
Sunil(2001) 1 SCC 652which reads as follows:-
“We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions
of the police officer should be approached with
initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion
was lavishly entertained during the British period
and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover
persisted during post-independent years but it is
time now to start placing at least initial trust on
the actions and the documents made by the
police. At any rate, the court cannot start with
the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the
presumption should be the other way around.
That official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a
police officer gives evidence in court that a
certain article was recovered by him on the
strength of the statement made by the accused it
is open to the court to believe the version to be
correct if it is not otherwise shown to be
unreliable. It is for the accused, through
cross-examination of witnesses or through any
other materials, to show that the evidence of the
police officer is either unreliable or at least
unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If
the court has any good reason to suspect the
truthfulness of such records of the police the
court could certainly take into account the fact
that no other independent person was present at
the time of recovery. But it is not a legally
approvable procedure to presume the police
action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison
such action merely for the reason that police did
not collect signatures of independent persons in
the documents made contemporaneous with
such actions.”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2011
Kulwinder Singh & Anr. V State of Punjab
Citation;(2015) 6 SCC674
Dipak Misra, J.
Print Page
the appellants is that no independent witness has been
examined to substantiate the allegation of the prosecution.
It is worth to note that Labh Singh and Harvinder Singh
have not been examined by the prosecution. The
explanation has been offered that the investigating agency
was of the view that they had been won over. The said
explanation has been totally substantiated inasmuch as
they have been examined as defence witnesses. In such a
situation, no adverse inference can be drawn for
non-examination of the said witnesses. That apart, the case
of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground
that independent witnesses have not been examined when,
on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds
that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy.
When the evidence of the official witnesses are trustworthy
and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on
the basis of their evidence. In this regard, it is profitable to
reproduce a passage from State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v.
Sunil(2001) 1 SCC 652which reads as follows:-
“We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions
of the police officer should be approached with
initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion
was lavishly entertained during the British period
and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover
persisted during post-independent years but it is
time now to start placing at least initial trust on
the actions and the documents made by the
police. At any rate, the court cannot start with
the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the
presumption should be the other way around.
That official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a
police officer gives evidence in court that a
certain article was recovered by him on the
strength of the statement made by the accused it
is open to the court to believe the version to be
correct if it is not otherwise shown to be
unreliable. It is for the accused, through
cross-examination of witnesses or through any
other materials, to show that the evidence of the
police officer is either unreliable or at least
unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If
the court has any good reason to suspect the
truthfulness of such records of the police the
court could certainly take into account the fact
that no other independent person was present at
the time of recovery. But it is not a legally
approvable procedure to presume the police
action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison
such action merely for the reason that police did
not collect signatures of independent persons in
the documents made contemporaneous with
such actions.”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2011
Kulwinder Singh & Anr. V State of Punjab
Citation;(2015) 6 SCC674
Dipak Misra, J.
