Joga Singh vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

Under challenge herein is the judgment dated 14.9.1988 rendered by Sessions Judge, Jind dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the judgment/order dated 19.4.1987/21.4.1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.1.1983 at about 6.15 P.M., the petitioner was manufacturing illicit liquor by means of a working still. He was apprehended and investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier.

Mehal Singh, the only independent witness in the case did not toe the line of the prosecution. He was not produced by the prosecution. He appeared in the defence of the petitioner. He emphatically stated that in his presence, neither Joga Singh petitioner was apprehended by the police nor he accompanied the police to the tubewell of the petitioner nor the petitioner was apprehended while manufacturing illicit liquor through working still nor the police recorded his statement. He was searchingly crossexamined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor but nothing favourable could be elicited from his statement. This fact alone makes the prosecution story doubtful.

P.W. 1 Dalip Singh, Excise Inspector is a formal witnesses. P.W. 2 Head Constable Krishan Lal and P.W. 3 Inspector Risal Singh are official witnesses. It is no doubt true that the prosecution case cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground that it consists of the evidence of the official witnesses but where an independent witness has been joined and he did not support the prosecution, rather supported the defence version then it casts a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

Keeping in view the fact that the only independent witness has not supported the prosecution, the contradiction in the statements of the two official witnesses assume significance. Head Constable Krishan Lal P.W. 2 deposed that he did not know after how many days the Investigating Officer deposited the case property whereas P.W. 3 Inspector Risal in unambiguous terms deposed that he had deposited the case property on the same day of recovery.

The petitioner took up a positive stand that he has been falsely implicated because he refused to become a false witness in a criminal case at the instance of the police.

In the light of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him and this revision stands accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below also stand set aside.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner, if any, shall stand discharged.

Revision allowed.