Independent witness requirements and acquittal review standards barred interference amid serious evidentiary infirmities
Leave to appeal against acquittal was declined because the prosecution evidence was found materially infirm. The case depended entirely on police witnesses, with no independent or respectable local witnesses joined in the raid or house search despite their availability, and the claimed efforts for public participation were treated as insincere. The Court also noted contradictions about the timing and movement of the rukka and FIR, unexplained use of private vehicles, doubts over the alleged master copies and printing of counterfeit notes, and discrepancies suggesting possible tampering with seized currency and case property. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is limited to exceptional cases of perversity, and the reinforced presumption of innocence was held to bar intervention.
Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal should be granted in view of the alleged evidentiary infirmities, including absence of independent witnesses, contradictions in police testimony, non-compliance with search safeguards, and possible tampering with case property.
Analysis: The prosecution case rested entirely on police witnesses. The evidence showed no association of independent or respectable local witnesses at the raid or the house search, despite available persons at the spot and the presence of the wife of the accused in the house. The Court also noted material contradictions regarding the timing and movement of the rukka and FIR, unexplained use of private vehicles despite availability of official vehicles, doubts regarding the alleged master copies and how the counterfeit notes were printed, and discrepancies suggesting possible tampering with the seized currency and the case property. The statutory requirement of associating independent witnesses in search proceedings was emphasised, and the Court found the efforts claimed to have been made for public participation to be insincere. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only in exceptional cases where the impugned judgment is perverse, and the presumption of innocence stands reinforced by the acquittal.
Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not warranted, as no exceptional ground for interference with the acquittal was made out.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
