country pistol and live cartridges were making preparation to commit dacoity. Therefore, evidence of PW.1 and 2 will not helpful to the prosecution to establish the alleged act of accused. PW.3 Srinivasa is the police witness on the alleged act of accused. He has given evidence to the effect that on credible information, to his CCB office at 2 p.m. on 14/10/2013 rushed near material place along with PW.1 and 2 after issuing them notice as per Ex.P2 and 3 and he found a group consisted 7 persons and members of said group were adverting on the road users of them used to conversate with each other and he found that they were indulged in misdeeds on observing their activities and thereafter, himself and his police personal conducted raid and succeeded in catching 5 accused and two escaped. He has further given evidence to the effect that A1 possessed with M.O.1 revolver and M.O.2 live cartridge and also M.O.3 mobile. He has further given evidence to the effect that other accused, who possessed rest of the material object, which are not material for the present context. He has also given evidence to the effect that he took 5 accused to his custody and seized M.O.1 to 11 through mahazar as per Ex.P1 with the presence of PW.1 and 2 and submitted accused along with his report and seized articles with ASI of complainant police station. It is important to note that the PW.3, who is police officer, has not stated exact overt-act of these accused which constitute their preparation to commit dacoity. PW.3 has stated in his evidence to the effect that '¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤AvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ zÀÆgÀ¢AzÀ UÀªÀĤ¹zɪÀÅ. C°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7 d£ÀgÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ EvÀÄÛ, CªÀgÀ°è PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ K£À£ÉÆßà ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ ZÀ®£ÀªÀ®£ÀUÀ½AzÀ CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà zÀĵÀÌçvÀé £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¸ÀeÁÓVzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÀAqÀħAvÀÄ'. PW.3 has not whispered the exact overt-act and also exact conduct and activities of these accused which constitute the preparation to commit dacoity. The above evidence of Pw.3 in the examination in chief, it is indefinite and vague. Therefore, based on evidence of PW.3, it is not possible to believe the existence of allegation of prosecution against these accused that these accused were making preparation to commit dacoity and assembled for that purpose armed with M.O.1 to 11. Therefore, evidence of PW.3 is of credible and believable to believe the alleged act of accused in the absence of independent testimony. No doubt, there is no law that the evidence of police officer to be discarded and corroboration of eye witnesses to be demanded. When there is no independent testimony evidence of police officer to be cautiously scrutinized. On the above noted statement of Pw.3, it is not proper to believe the version of prosecution on the alleged act
