The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no need for independent corroboration from Panch-witnesses if there is intrinsic evidence or circumstances to corroborate the evidence of the police officer.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 12-4-1991, rendered in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1991, by the learned JMPC, Porbandar, wherein the Respondent - Narsi Bavan alias Japan Panjri, who came to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under section 142 of the Bombay police Act, 1951 was at the end of trial ordered to be acquitted.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to PSI- Mr. V. N. Chauhan [pw-1, Exh-5], the respondent on 9-7-1990 was externed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porbandar in Externment Case No. 9 of 1990 from the districts of Junagadh, Jamnagar and Amrali. Despite the said externment order, the respondent committing breach of the same was found near the temple of "santoshi Mata" hiding his identity, and accordingly, came to be arrested on the spot and a complaint in the said regard bearing no. CR-II 42/90 was filed against him at Porbandar a Police Division under section 142 of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, the respondent was produced before the learned Magistrate on the vary same day in the morning. On the basis of these facts, thereafter, the respondent came to be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid alleged offences to stand trial before the learned Magistrate.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after duly appreciating the prosecution evidence brought on the record, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that as the two Ranch-witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the uncorroborated testimony of PSI- Chauhan was not sufficient to record the order of conviction. It is under these circumstances that the state has preferred the present acquittal appeal.

( 4 ) NOW, on carefully examining the record, it appears to this Court that merely because the Panchas did not support the prosecution case, that factor by itself in each and every case, cannot be permitted to over-shadow the evidence of Police Officer and to be viewed with suspicion. If at all it was the anxiety of the trial Court to have some independent corroboration to the evidence of PSI-Mr. Chauhan before he could convict the respondent, then in that case, it was certainly not necessary that the desired corroboration should forth come only from the evidence of Panch-witnesses. In fact, even if such Panch- witnesses are declared hostile, then even if there is some intrinsic evidence by way of some circumstances like contemporaneous record, then such an evidence also can be taken help of, to corroborate the evidence of Police Officer. Here, in the instant case, the respondent was immediately produced before the learned Magistrate alongwith the report on the very day after his arrest. Now, this circumstance standing by itself clinches the issue in favour of the prosecution. Not only that but there appears to be no other probable reason for PSI-Mr. Chauhan to falsely implicate the accused. It is really unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has failed to notice the above two glaring circumstances which are eloquent enough to need any further corroboration to the evidence of PSI. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has obviously committed a patent error in holding that in absence of independent Panch witness supporting the prosecution case, the evidence of PSI-Chauhan cannot be accepted.

( 5 ) MR. K. B. Anandjiwala, the learned advocate for the respondent [appointed] submitted that once the trial Court has given benefit of doubt on the ground that panchas did not support the prosecution case, then in that case, at such a belated stage, no exception should be taken to the said finding of acquittal which by no standard can be said to be perverse. Now, as stated above, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent came to be produced before the learned Magistrate on the very day and that mere was no earthly reason for PSI-Mr. Chauhan to falsely frame-up an extemee, it is indeed not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Anandjiwala. Thus, having regard to the facts an