The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case observed and has set aside the conviction of two individuals charged under the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, while holding that when two views are possible in a Criminal Case, the one favouring the accused is to be adopted.
The single bench headed by Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa in the case observed and has held that when two views are possible in a Criminal case, which view is favourable to the accused has to be considered.
In the present case, the Défense Witness 1 blatantly rejected the case of the prosecution, he being the Village Servant working as a public servant openly stated in the Court that the excise officials obtained his signatures on the blank paper and not only in this case but also in several other cases. Therefore, there is no mandate under the Code of Criminal Procedure that witness has to appear before the Court to give evidence only on receipt of summons.
The court stated that the accused has not been produced any witness to surprise the prosecution. Thus, DW.1 is the own witness of the prosecution, but the prosecution did not choose to examine him.
Further, the court emphasized that there is no mandate under the Code of Criminal Procedure that a witness has to appear before the Court to give evidence only on receipt of summons, upon being told that the lower court had rejected the defence evidence which belied the prosecution case, on grounds that the defence witness had not been summoned.
The bench in the case observed and has passed the said order while relying on the judgement passed by the APHC in the case Pothabathula Abbulu v The State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the criminal revision plea was moved challenging the concurrent orders of conviction passed by the lower courts under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act.
It has also been contended by the accused or appellants that the lower court based their conviction solely on the testimony of the official witnesses/Police officials, which was untenable in law.
Further, it has been contended by the petitioner that the lower Court had blatantly ignored the deposition of the attester, another public servant, to the panchnamma, which completely went against the case of the prosecution.
Before the court, it was submitted that the deposition of the panchwitness stated that Police Officials, not only in this case but also in several other cases had taken his signature on blank papers.
The court in the case noted that nothing had been elicited in the cross-examination against the said panchwitness, in order to discredit his evidence and the lower Court had discarded the same on the sole ground that he had not been summoned by the Court, which was not tenable in law.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the
deposition of the panchwitness which was not considered had gone against the version painted by the prosecution and hence the entire prosecution case based on only evidence by official witnesses, could not be taken on record as ‘truthful’.
Accordingly, the court allowed the revision plea and has set aside the orders of conviction for the petitioners.
The counsel, Advocate Butta Vijaya Bhasker appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Public Prosecutor represented the respondent or state.
