Raju Ravidas vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 11-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada in Special (Excise G.R.) Case No. 1646 of 2017 arising out of Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 842 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.12.2017, the informant received secret information that the appellant was engaged in illegal storage and sale of liquor. On receipt of the said information, a raiding party was constituted and a raid was conducted at the house of the appellant. It is alleged that during the course of the raid, 90 pouches of country-made liquor, each containing 200 ml., totaling 18 litres, were allegedly recovered from a room in the house of the appellant. A seizure list was prepared and the appellant was arrested. On the basis of the said occurrence, Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 842 of 2017 was instituted.

In this case, in order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Amar Nath Chauhan, is the informant, a member of the raiding party and has supported the prosecution case. However, he has admitted that the seizure witnesses belonged to another locality, no search of the police party was offered before entering the house and the seized liquor was not sealed at the place of occurrence. P.W. 2, namely Bindeshwar Chaudhary, is also a member of the raiding party and has corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1, however, in cross-examination, he stated that he remained outside the room while P.W. 1 entered inside and recovered the liquor. P.W. 3, namely Shailendra Kumar and P.W. 5, namely Rakesh Roushan, are seizure-list witnesses, however, in their cross-examination they admitted that they did not witness the actual recoery. P.W. 4, namely, Vinod Kumar Khalifa, is the Excise Inspector, who examined the seized liquor. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the seized liquor was sealed in the Court.

On the other hand, the defence has examined two witnesses. D.W. 1, namely Sharda Singh and D.W. 2, namely Mahendra Prasad, who are neighbors of the appellant and have stated that no raid was conducted at the house of the appellant.

After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinabove.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffer from serious infirmities and that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged recovery of liquor from the conscious possession of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that no independent local witness was associated with the alleged search and seizure. It is next submitted that though the alleged recovery was made from the house of the appellant, the seizure-list witnesses examined by the prosecution were not local residents and, as stated in their evidence, were brought by the police and were residing at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in the manner required to establish the alleged recovery beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the sanctity and integrity of the seized articles. It is pointed out that the alleged seized liquor was neither sealed at the place of seizure nor sealed at the police station. The evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, as well as P.W. 6, the Investigating Officer, itself shows that the seized liquor was not sealed at the relevant stage. It is submitted that the articles were sealed only before the Court. Thus, there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the manner in which the seized liquor was preserved from the time of its alleged seizure until its production before the Court. The possibility of tampering or substitution, therefore, cannot be completely ruled out. It is further submitted that the seizure list itself contains the date of institution of the F.I.R., which, according to learned counsel, creates a serious doubt regarding the manner and sequence in which the alleged search, seizure and institution of the F.I.R. took place. It is contended that the said circumstance, when considered along with the absence of sealing of the seized articles and the doubtful status of the seizure-list witnesses, assumes considerable significance. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the deposition of P.W. 2, who has stated that he remained outside the room from which the alleged recovery was made and that he himself did not enter the said room. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and appellant should be acquitted of the charges.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, taken as a whole, sufficiently establishes the recovery of 90 pouches of country-made liquor from the house of the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are police or excise personnel and that the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence, has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accordingly, submits that no interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is warranted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from certain material infirmities which go to the root of the matter. The alleged recovery is stated to have been made from a room situated in the house of the appellant. However, no independent local witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged search and seizure. The two seizure-list witnesses examined by the prosecution, i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W. 5, were admittedly not local residents of the place of occurrence and were stated to have been brought by the police and in their cross-examination, have stated that they were not present at the time and place of the alleged recovery.

More importantly, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the manner in which the alleged seized liquor was preserved and kept secure after its seizure. P.W. 1, the informant, as well as P.W. 6, the Investigating Officer, have admitted that the seized articles were not sealed either at the spot or at the police station. The articles were sealed only before the Court. In a prosecution which rests upon the alleged recovery of contraband or liquor, the prosecution is required to establish not merely the factum of seizure but also that the very articles allegedly recovered from the accused were kept in safe custody and were produced before the Court and, wherever applicable, sent for examination without there being any possibility of tampering or substitution. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram reported in (1980) 3 SCC 303, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that the prosecution is required to establish the complete chain of custody of the seized substance and to rule out the possibility of the sample having been tampered with or changed while it remained in different hands. The Supreme Court found that, where the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the integrity of the seals and the chain through which the seized substance reached the analyst, the prosecution could not be said to have established beyond reasonable doubt that the substance examined was the very substance seized from the accused.

The aforesaid infirmity assumes greater significance in view of the evidence of P.W. 2. Though he is stated to have been a member of the raiding party, he has admitted that he remained outside the room in question and did not enter the room from which the alleged liquor was recovered. Thus, his evidence does not provide direct corroboration of the alleged recovery from the said room. The alleged recovery, therefore, substantially rests upon the testimony of P.W. 1. When such evidence is considered along with the absence of any independent local witness and the doubtful status of the seizure-list witnesses, the prosecution version requires a much higher degree of scrutiny.

This Court also finds significance in the fact that the seizure-list witnesses examined by the prosecution were not local witnesses. The defence has examined D.W. 1 and D.W. 2, both of whom are neighbours of the appellant and have categorically stated that no raid was conducted at the house of the appellant. Though the evidence of the defence witnesses has to be considered with due caution, their testimony cannot be brushed aside altogether, particularly when the prosecution has failed to produce any independent local witness to corroborate the alleged search and seizure.

Another circumstance which casts a shadow upon the prosecution version is the manner in which the seizure list and the institution of the F.I.R. are reflected in the record. The seizure list contains the date of institution of the F.I.R. The said circumstance, when considered in conjunction with the other deficiencies noticed hereinabove, creates a doubt regarding the sequence of events relating to the alleged search, seizure and institution of the case. While such a circumstance, by itself, may not be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case, it assumes significance when the prosecution evidence already suffers from deficiencies relating to the presence of witnesses, the actual recovery and the preservation of the seized articles.

It is well settled that the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that such burden does not shift merely on the basis of an alleged recovery unless the prosecution first establishes the factum of recovery and the identity and integrity of the seized substance through reliable evidence. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the absence of an independent local witness, the doubtful presence and status of the seizure-list witnesses, the admitted failure to seal the seized liquor at the spot or at the police station and the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding its safe custody, creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.

This Court is conscious of the fact that the mere fact that the witnesses are police or official witnesses cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard their testimony. However, in the present case, the issue is not merely the official status of the witnesses. The prosecution evidence, when assessed in its entirety, leaves material gaps concerning the alleged recovery and the subsequent custody and preservation of the seized articles. These deficiencies are not merely technical in nature but go to the root of the prosecution case, particularly when the alleged recovery of liquor constitutes the principal incriminating circumstance against the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt. The material infirmities in the prosecution evidence and the unexplained break in the chain of custody of the seized articles create a reasonable doubt which must necessarily ensure to the benefit of the appellant. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence on record.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada in Special (Excise G.R.) Case No. 1646 of 2017 arising out of Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 842 of 2017 are, accordingly, set aside.

The appellant, above named, is acquitted of the charges and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond in connection with the present case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.