Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ruprao Daulatrao Kadu, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morshi in S.C.C. No.1005/1999 for the offence punishable under Section 12(a) read with Section 4 proviso (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/-. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court. The applicant filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The applicant's defence was that the independent witnesses had turned hostile and that the testimony of two police witnesses, P.W.3 (Police Constable Ramesh Gaidhane) and P.W.4 (Head Constable Gowardhan Raut), who were part of the raiding party, could not be relied upon. The applicant also claimed that he was falsely implicated and his signature was obtained forcibly at the police chowki. The High Court, after perusing the impugned judgments, noted that P.W.3 and P.W.4 supported the prosecution case in entirety. The Court held that in the absence of specific enmity being brought on record against these police witnesses, and following the principle that evidence of police witnesses cannot be thrown out merely because they are police witnesses, there was no error in the courts below placing reliance on their testimony. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Police Witnesses - Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, Section 12(a) r/w Section 4 proviso (a) - The applicant was convicted for gambling. The only defence was that independent witnesses turned hostile and police witnesses could not be relied upon. The Court held that evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are police personnel, in the absence of specific enmity being brought on record. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 12(a) r/w Section 4 proviso (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act can be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses when independent witnesses have turned hostile.
Final Decision
Criminal Revision Application No.214/2005 is dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
Law Points
- Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are police personnel
- in absence of enmity
- Conviction under Section 12(a) r/w Section 4 proviso (a) of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act can be based on testimony of police witnesses even if independent witnesses turn hostile
