Official witness testimony can sustain excise conviction when reliable evidence and recovery support guilt, even if independent witnesses turn hostile.

Conviction for an excise offence can be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses if, on an overall appraisal of the evidence, that testimony is trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt, even where independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case. The Court held that there is no inflexible rule requiring acquittal whenever independent witnesses turn hostile, and distinguished contrary authorities on their facts. The conviction was upheld because the official evidence was consistent and supported by recovery of the working still and seized articles. The sentence was, however, reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine, with default imprisonment maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conviction for an excise offence could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses when the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case; (ii) Whether the sentence should be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether conviction for an excise offence could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses when the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

Analysis: The rule that conviction must fail whenever independent witnesses turn hostile or do not support the prosecution is not inflexible. The Court held that each case must be judged on its own facts, and the decisive question is whether the evidence accepted by the Court, whether from official or non-official sources, is sufficient to prove guilt. The official witnesses in the present case gave a consistent version, were not shown to be biased, and their testimony was supported by the recovery of the working still and articles seized in the raid. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as cases where the evidence was otherwise doubtful, where official witnesses were solitary, or where the prosecution version suffered from material inconsistencies.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld; the Court held that the prosecution case had been proved and that there was no absolute rule barring reliance on official witnesses merely because independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence should be reduced.

Analysis: The minimum sentence was six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The petitioner had undergone a lengthy trial, and the Court found merit in the request for leniency on sentence while maintaining the conviction.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, with further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of sentence modification, while the finding of guilt under the excise law remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of official witnesses may be accepted and relied upon to sustain a conviction if, on an overall appraisal of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, it is found trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt, even where independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case.

---