Joga Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal filed by Joga Singh and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.7.1986 passed by the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted the appellant U/s 25 Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months.

Joga Singh was required in a case u/s 307/34, IPC, registered vide FIR No. 225 of 1984, Police Station Valtoha, District Amritsar, for causing injuries with a spear to Surta Singh in the presence of his son Hazara Singh. The appellant was arrested in that case and during the course of investigation he was interrogated about the weapon of offence and he suffered a disclosure statement, Ex. PA, that he had kept concealed one spear in the mussal of turi in his field and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement was recorded. It was read over and explained to the appellant, who thumb marked the same in token of its correctness and led the police party to the specified place of concealment and got recovered spear Ex. P1, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PC. Accused could not produce any license or permit for the possession of the spear. Ruqa, Ex. PD, was sent to the police for the registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PD/1 was recorded.

After the completion of the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned in the Court of the Special Judge who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide orders dated 16.3.1985, framed a charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act on the allegations that the appellant on 29.3.1984 in the area of village Dholan, had kept in his possession one spear without licence and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined ASI Ram Nath, PW1, I.O., and HC Baldev Singh, PW2. Both these witnesses consistently deposed before the trial court that the appellant was interrogated about the weapon of offence and on interrogation, he disclosed that he had kept concealed the spear in the Musal of Turi near his bethak in his fields and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. Thereafter, Joga Singh led the police party and witnesses to the specified place of concealment and got recovered the spear, Ex. P1. In the main case, it is alleged against the appellant that he used the spear for causing injury to Surta Singh. In these circumstances, the probability cannot be ruled out that the appellant must be in the possession of the spear on 29.8.1984 just about 15 days of the main occurrence, which took place on 13.8.1984.

The counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any discrepancy in the statements of ASI Ram Nath and HC Baldev Singh. The only submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that no independent witness has been associated by the police party before effecting the recovery.

The argument is devoid of merit. In fact, Hazara Singh son of Surta Singh was associated and he must have assisted the I.O. in the investigation. Even if the independent witness has not been associated by the I.O., still the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are police officials. The law of the land is well settled that the testimony of the police officials is at par with the nonofficial witnesses. The only rider before acting upon the testimony of the police officials is that the court should scrutinise their statements with care and caution. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out why ASI Ram Nath would plant a spear upon the appellant. Rather, the recovery of the spear from the appellant is very probable because he allegedly used the spear on 13.8.1984 for causing injuries to Surta Singh.

In this view of the matter, the appeal is hereby dismissed with the observations that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in this case shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence, which has been awarded to him in the main appeal.

Before I part with this order, I may also state that vide my separate judgment of the even date, the appeal of Joga Singh has been dismissed in the main case by reducing the substantive sentence from 7 years to 4 years.