Police testimony can sustain conviction despite hostile independent seizure witnesses.

Police conducted a trap near Muktidham Gate, Dondilohara, after receiving information that the applicant was selling illicit country-made liquor.

A police constable acting as a dummy purchaser bought a pouch using a marked ₹100 note.

The police then recovered 19 further pouches, totalling 3.420 bulk litres, from the applicant and recovered the marked note from his pocket.

The trial court convicted him under Section 34(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000; the Sessions Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The applicant challenged those concurrent findings in revision under Sections 438 read with 442 of the BNSS, arguing, among other things, that the independent seizure witnesses had turned hostile and the prosecution had not produced the Malkhana Register.

1. Whether the evidence, including the testimony of police witnesses and the recovery and testing evidence, sufficiently established the applicant’s guilt despite the independent witnesses turning hostile?

2. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction disclosed any perversity, legal error, or jurisdictional illegality warranting interference in revision?

3. Whether the sentence imposed required interference?

Section 34(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, governed the offence and, as the court stated, prescribed a minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of ₹10,000.

The court applied the principle that police testimony is not to be rejected merely because independent seizure witnesses have turned hostile, relying on Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627.

In exercising revisional jurisdiction, the court considered whether the concurrent findings suffered from perversity, patent error of law, or jurisdictional illegality.

The court found the evidence of the raiding officer and the dummy purchaser clear and mutually supportive as to the trap, marked-note purchase, and recovery.

Although the independent witnesses denied knowledge of the incident, they admitted their signatures on the relevant police documents; the court considered their explanation that they had signed numerous documents without knowing their contents unconvincing, and noted that coercion or misrepresentation had not been established.

The liquor’s nature was supported by the Excise Sub-Inspector’s examination and report, while the Investigating Officer’s evidence and produced register records answered the objection concerning the Malkhana Register.

Finding no material in cross-examination to undermine the official witnesses and no basis to disturb the concurrent findings, the court held that revisional interference was unwarranted.

The sentence was the statutory minimum and was therefore upheld.

The applicant, reported to be on bail, was directed to surrender before the trial court within 20 days to undergo the remaining sentence; any period already served in jail was to be adjusted in accordance with law.