Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Garg, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for having been found in possession of 63/4 bottles of illicit liquor. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. This conviction and sentence was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal by the petitioner.

The petitioner was allegedly intercepted by ASI Ram Charan, P.W.1 in the presence of HC Tek Ram, P.W.2 on 19.10.1985 while he was carrying 63/4 bottles of illicit liquor in a plastic jerrican on the carrier of his cycle in the area of village Bhusthala. A sample was taken out. The remaining liquor and the sample were sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. The report of Chemical Examiner Ex.P2 stated that it was a county made liquor. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and the testimony of the aforesaid two police officials had resulted into the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that there were several discrepancies in the statements of the two official witnesses. However, the learned Sessions Judge observed that these discrepancies and contradictions are immaterial and bound to result if the evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. In the case in hand, it is important to notice that no independent person is examined to corroborate the testimony of the police officials. It is true that the statements of the police officials cannot be discarded merely because such witnesses happened to be members of the police force. However, it is a cardinal principle of law that for appreciation of evidence in such cases the evidence of the police officials must inspire confidence in their truthfulness. The discrepancies mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment are in fact material. There is no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of the police officials. Such an investigation amounts to camera proceedings or an ex parte proceedings against a citizen. It is also true that public participation is not available to facilitate a proper investigation. However, in such circumstances, it must be said that no senior Police Officer come forward to investigate such cases. The cases are left to be investigated by a very junior and petty officer and the liberty of the citizen come to stake. The crossexamination is an important weapon to discredit the testimony of such witnesses when it reflects that such witness if had been together and had captured the liquor as such the discrepancies would not have been there. The human memory is not so weak that it forgets the recent past in such a manner that the witnesses make significant discrepant statements. However each and every case depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, the discrepancies with regard to the distance of village Bhusthla from the place of apprehension and the recovery of the contraband property; the direction from which the accused had come; the village of petitioner being Dunia Majra or Pipli Majra; the petitioner having been handcuffed at the spot or not; the mode of conveyance wherein the petitioner was taken to the Police Station, the number of Constables who took the petitioner to the Police Station, the time of the police party having left the spot and the proceedings having been completed while sitting on the ground or on the bridge, are material, in the given situation. The petitioner had no other method to discredit the aforesaid official witnesses. If such discrepancies are also not considered then in every case where the police officials are witnesses, the conviction is bound to result and would result into miscarriage of justice. The evidence of the prosecution must be above board and must reflect the truthfulness in the case. Besides the improbability in the story of the prosecution that the petitioner would ever come to a place where the police officials are present in uniform or that even the actual purpose of the police on the spot is not explained, is imaginary and created one.

In view of above discussion, looking from any angle the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in the given case cannot be sustained. Therefore, the revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Revision allowed.