Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh, J.—The petition-accused, Jaswinder Singh, was convicted for the offence u/s 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 18.12.2001. He preferred appeal against that conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 27.4.2005. Now, the present revision has been preferred by him against that conviction and sentence.

The facts, in brief, are that on 21.8.1996, one load SIRTO-BAP came on railway line No. 1 in Railway Station, Sadhugarh, at about 1.20 p.m. The diesel engine of that load was unconnected and was sent to Ambala. At about 2.30 p.m., one electric engine No. 23786 was connected with that load. It was found that vacuum from the load was not being created. At the time, it was Ajay Pal Singh, SM/SDY, who was on duty. Bhajna Ram, Driver, Naresh Kumar, Co-Driver and S.K. Soni, Guard, in order to check the train, were going towards the brake portion thereof. When they reached near the latrine of platform No. 1, they found that Ajay Pal Singh, had stopped the accused, who was holding the brake block in his hand and was being asked by Ajay Pal Singh that he had not done good act. The accused managed to escape from the spot after throwing the brake block. 10 such brake blocks were found lying on the platform, which were taken into possession, along with the brake pins lying at that place. Message was sent to the control room and on the receipt thereof, Gurdev Singh, ASI, P.W. 7 came to the spot. All these facts were disclosed to him and the brake blocks and the brake pins, which were so recovered, were produced before him and those were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.W. 2/A. The ASI recorded the statements of all these railway officials. These brake blocks were tested by Surinder Singh, HTXR, P.W. 1, and he came to the conclusion that those were railway property and he gave his report Ex. PA accordingly. The ASI arrested the accused on 24.8.1996 and on interrogation, it was disclosed by him that on 21.8.1996, by taking advantage of the darkness, he was placing the brake blocks, after removing the same from the train on platform No. 1, when Ajay Pal Singh came to that place and stopped him from doing so. He also disclosed that the brake blocks, so removed by him, were 10 in number and those also included four brake pins.

His confessional statement was also reduced into writing. After completion of the investigation, the complaint was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. As the complaint was filed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, so the accused was summoned without recording any preliminary evidence. The accused was charged for offence u/s 3 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Surinder Singh, P.W. 1, Munshi Ram HC, P.W. 2, Bhajna Ram, P.W. 3, S.K. Soni, P.W. 4, Naresh Kumar, Driver, P.W. 5, Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 6, Gurdev Singh ASI, P.W. 7 and Chander Shekhar Kapoor, P.W. 8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He also stated that no such railway property was recovered from him. He was called upon to enter on his defence and he examined Hardeep Singh, D.W. 1, in his defence evidence.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

It has been submitted by counsel for the accused that the prosecution case is based upon the statements of the official witnesses and it cannot be concluded therefrom that any such stolen brake blocks or brake pins were recovered from the possession of the accused. The recovery of stolen railway property is sine qua non of the offence u/s 3 of the Act. In the absence of that evidence, the accused could not have been convicted. He further submitted that no independent witness was joined when the alleged confessional statement was made by the accused. In the absence of any independent corroboration, no reliance can be placed on the statements of the police officials and that confessional statement cannot be taken into consideration. In the last, he submitted that the property alleged to be the railway property, was never proved to be the railway property and contradictory evidence was produced by the prosecution on that aspect of the case. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.

According to Section 3 of the Act, who so ever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any railway property, reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, is liable to be punished. Bhajna Ram, P.W. 3 and S.K. Soni, P.W. 4, made categorical statements that the accused was caught red handed while he was holding a brake block in his hand and after throwing the same, he had escaped from the spot. There is no rule of law that before placing reliance on the statements of official witnesses, the same must be corroborated by some independent evidence. Moreover, the members of the Railway Protection Force stand at a better footing as compared to the police officials. The prosecution is not only relying on the evidence regarding the recovery of brake block from the possession of the accused but is also relying upon the confessional statement made by him before the member of the said force; namely Gurdev Singh, ASI. P.W. 7. That confessional statement was proved on the record as Ex. P.W. 7/A. He had made the confession that he had removed the brake blocks from the train and was caught red handed by Ajay Pal Singh, and that the brake blocks and brake pins, so removed by him were 10 and 4, respectively, in number. Such confessional statement made by the accused before the member of the Railway Protection Force is admissible in evidence. There is categorical statement of Surinder Singh, P.W. 1, corroborated by his report. Ex. P.A, that the property in question was railway property. From the evidence so produced by the prosecution, including his confessional statement, it stands proved that the accused was having the possession of the railway property and he failed to prove that he was in lawful possession thereof. Re-appreciation and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible while exercising the revisional jurisdiction unless the Court came to the conclusion that the findings so recorded by the trial court or the appellate court are perverse or illegal or are based on misreading of the evidence. After minute examination of the record it has been found that it is not so in the present case. No ground is made out for interfering in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

Accused be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him

Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.