{"id":824,"date":"2023-09-07T21:28:11","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T15:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=824"},"modified":"2023-09-07T21:59:21","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T16:29:21","slug":"kerala-akbari-act-stating-that-the-testimonies-of-official-witnesses-cannot-be-discarded-simply-because-independent-witnesses-were-not-examined","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/kerala-akbari-act-stating-that-the-testimonies-of-official-witnesses-cannot-be-discarded-simply-because-independent-witnesses-were-not-examined\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court upholds conviction under Kerala Akbari Act stating that the testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined"},"content":{"rendered":"

SATHYAN\u00a0 \u00a0(<\/strong>APPELLANT) Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF KERALA\u00a0 \u00a0(<\/strong>RESPONDENT)<\/h1>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2363 OF 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by SANJAY KAROL J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present appeal is at the instance of the Accused-Appellant namely, Sathyan against the order and judgement dated 5th September, 2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 2822 of 20081, wherein his prayer to set aside the conviction in S.C. No. 1140 of 2006 under Section 8 of the Abkari Act, was denied and the findings returned by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kozhikode, in judgment dated 3rd November, 2008, were endorsed.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of official witnesses is sustainable in the present facts?<\/li>\n
  • Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in filing the challan can be said to be materially affecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower court as also the judgement impugned before us?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is submitted that the fairness of the investigation was compromised since the person who detected the crime and the person who investigated, were one and the same. Further, the official witnesses being unreliable, independent witnesses are an indispensable requirement in the present case. Further submission made on behalf of the Appellant was, \u201cdelay\u201d, in two aspects; one, the contraband being produced before the Magistrate and two, in the completion of investigation, i.e., from the arrest of the Appellant on 1st October, 2003, to the completion of the investigation on 17th April 2006.<\/p>\n

    Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court partly allowed the present appeal and while upholding his conviction, modified the sentence of the Appellant to serve a period of three months, simple imprisonment.<\/p>\n

    With respect of the first issue, it was held that, \u201cthe testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined. The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on \u201cany good reason\u201d which, quite apparently is missing from the present case.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    With respect of the second issue, it was held that, \u201cmere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained. Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    SATHYAN\u00a0 \u00a0(APPELLANT) Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF KERALA\u00a0 \u00a0(RESPONDENT) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2363 OF 2023 (2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by SANJAY KAROL J.) Facts: The present appeal is at the instance of the Accused-Appellant namely, Sathyan against the order and judgement dated 5th September, 2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":825,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=824"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":851,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824\/revisions\/851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}