Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SUDARSANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1301 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. HEMALATHA
For the Respondents: SMT. BINDU O.V.
The court set aside the conviction due to the prosecution's failure to prove a tamper-proof chain of evidence, impacting the integrity of the trial.
Headnote:(A) Abkari Act - Sections 8(1) and 8(2) - Revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for carrying arrack - Prosecution failed to establish tamper-proof handling of evidence - Evidence of officials was inconsistent regarding chain of custody - Conviction set aside based on lack of convincing evidence. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Law - Due process in investigation and prosecution - Necessity for objects and documents to be handled in a tamper-proof manner - Failure in this regard leads to question of reliability of the prosecution case. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested for carrying arrack during a patrol by excise officials. The trial court convicted him; subsequent appeal was dismissed but key issues related to evidence handling were a concern.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the prosecution did not prove that the evidence reached the analyst without tampering, leading to the conclusion that the trial was flawed.
Issues: The core issue was the adequacy of evidence regarding tampering proof in handling the seized sample.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that failure to demonstrate a tamper-proof chain of evidence undermined the prosecution's case, warranting a reversal of the conviction due to reasonable doubt.
Result: Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of arrest and conviction of the accused under the abkari act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on the validity of prosecution's evidence and procedural concerns. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on the integrity of evidence handling and proof of tampering. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Sections 8 (1)
read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act .
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in SC No.595 of 2010 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Karunagappally. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Sections 8 (1) r/w 8(2) of the Abkari Act .
3. The prosecution case is that, on 11.03.2007, while PW1, the Preventive Officer attached to the Karunagappally Excise Range Office, and his party were patrolling, they found the accused carrying arrack in a black can having a capacity of 5 litres at a place called Alumpeedika Junction.
4. The trial court, on elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 8 (1) of the Abkari Act . It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 8 (2) of the , with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.
Appeal No.128 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Court – II, Kollam. The said court, by judgment dated 10.11.2014, dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Smt.Hemalatha, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Bindu O.V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. She submitted that PW1 is not competent to register the crime, arrest the accused and prepare the documents. She also submitted that no authorisation has been produced to show that PW1, at the relevant time, was holding charge of the Excise Inspector, Karunagappally. She further argued that the prosecution has not proved convincingly that the sample taken from the spot has reached the chemical analyst in a tamper-proof condition.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. She submitted that the non-affixing of sample seal in the Ext.P3 scene mahazar is not fatal since, all the documents and articles, including the forwarding note which contains the specimen of the seal have been produced before the Magistrate on the date of seizure itself.
9. On going through the materials on record, it is to be seen that the prosecution is heavily relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to prove the detection, seizure and arrest of the accused. PW1 is the preventive officer, and PW2 is the guard attached to the Excise Range Office, Karunagappally. Both PW1 and PW2 have given evidence in tune with each other regarding the events which transpired on that day. Their evidence show that while they were conducting patrolling, they found the accused carrying a black plastic can containing arrack. The accused was detained and PW1 took a sample in a bottle having a capacity of 375 ml. Thereafter, the plastic can and the sample bottle were tied, sealed and labelled. PW1 also arrested the accused by preparing Ext.P1 arrest memo and seized all the articles by preparing Ext.P3 Mahazar. Thereafter, went to the Excise Office and registered Ext.P4 occurrence report. Subsequently, PW1 also prepared Ext.P5 property list and Ext.P6 forwarding note and forwarded the articles and the accused to the Magistrate Court. Ext.P8, the inventory certified by the Magistrate was also marked through PW1.
10. Be that as it may, it is to be seen that even though the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and
