Police Officer's Testimony Not Infirm Merely Because He Belongs To The Force, Can Be Basis Of Conviction If Evidence Is Reliable: Kerala HC

“In Girja Prasad v. State of M.P [(2007) 7 SCC 625], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence.”

Background

The order was passed in a plea moved by two men who were convicted for offence under IPC Section 489C (Possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes) by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court. As per the prosecution, a police party led by the detecting officer found 256 fake notes of Rs. 1000 denomination after conducting the body search of the 2 men who were at the time staying in a lodge room. The petitioners had challenged the conviction before the High Court.

They argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the seizure of the fake currency. It was also argued that the case was initially investigated by a police officer who had no jurisdiction to investigate the case. They further argued that the seized notes were not sealed at the place of incident and so tampering cannot be ruled out.

Meanwhile the detecting officer had given a narration of seizure of the notes, which was corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses, the court noted.

Taking note of the detecting officer's testimony the high court said that the same need not be discarded just because he is a police officer. An attendant of the lodge who was witness to the seizure has corroborated on the seizure of counterfeit notes from the room. He however could not identify the accused. The Court said that inability to identify the accused is not fatal to the prosecution taking note of the fact that the examination was held 8 years after the incident. Another attendant of the lodge had testified that he had let out the room to the petitioners and the next day he came to know from the other attendant that the persons who stayed at the room were arrested by the police for possessing fake currency.

The high court further said that the petitioners-accused have no case that the detection officer was "nurturing any grudge or vendetta against them so as to implicate them falsely in a crime of this nature". It further went on to observe that counterfeit currency notes seized from the petitioners were sent to Bank Note Press, through court. The report received, the court noted, "specifically opined" that the 256 notes sent for expert opinion "were counterfeit currency notes" of Rs. 1000 denomination.

The initial investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector and the alleged incident occurred beyond his territorial jurisdiction. He testified before the Court that he conducted the investigation on the orders of his superior officer. The investigation was subsequently handed over to the Crime Branch. The Court held that the fact that part of the investigation was done by the Circle Inspector does not affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

The Court further held that the testimony of the witness would show that the counterfeit notes were seized from the accused. The Court noted that in the search list, the detecting officer had written down the serial number of the seized notes. It also held that therefore, non-sealing of the seized notes has caused no prejudice to the petitioners.

The Court observed that the accused has not come up with any explanation as to how they came into possession of the large quantity of currency notes. Noting that there was adequate corroboration of the evidence of material witnesses, the high court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court and Sessions Court.

Before parting the high court said, "Large quantity of counterfeit currency notes were seized from the accused. It is a well settled principle that punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. The counterfeiting of currency notes is a grave offence which destabilises and undermines the economy and it poses threat to the security of the nation. Considering the gravity of offence, the sentence awarded is not harsh or excessive". It thus dismissed the plea.

Case Title: B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala

Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. P. P. Ramachandran

Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Adv. T. R. Renjith

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 150 of 2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695