Karnail Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Karnail Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act for having in his possession 25 Kgs. of opium and was sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default to under rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, on 8121979. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner have been maintained by a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dated the 29th October, 1980. He has now come up by way of revision.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8th March, 1978, SubInspector Gurdial Singh alongwith some other police officials including Assistant SubInspector Daljeet Singh, Assistant SubInspector Gurnam Singh and Head Constable Muktiar Singh set out for patrolling. Shri Sudershan Singh Chopra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, met then near the police station in a jeep. There, on receipt of a secret information against the petitioner the police party set out to hold a nakabandi under the overall supervision of Shri Sudarshan Singh. Dulla Singh and Banta Singh were also joined from the Public. When the entire party reached the bridge on a canal minor falling on the link road from village Botianwala to village Santowala, the petitioner alongwith Mehal Singh was seen coming from the side of village Kachar Bhan. They were apprehended. From the attache case carried by the petitioner, five packets, each containing 5 kgs. of opium were recovered. A sample was taken out of each of the five packets and sent to the Chemical Examiner, who subsequently found them to be opium. After necessary investigation, the accusedpetitioner was challenged, convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

The prosecution examined Dulla Singh, PW 1, SubInspector Gurdial Singh, PW 2, and Shri Sukarshan Singh Chopra, Dy. Supdt. of Police, PW 3. The petitioner has denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was arrested from his village and was falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was, however, led in defence.

The prosecution case herein seems to bristle with a number of infirmities, the collective effect of which inevitably is that it is case obviously becomes clouded with doubt. The first significant thing to notice herein is that Dulla Singh, the socalled eyewitness joined by the prosecution, has admitted that he had been frequently visiting the Police Station Zira and joining the Police as a witness in the cases whenever he was called upon to do so. It is thus apparent that he is at the beck and call of the police Banta Singh, another witness joined from the public, has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The conduct of SubInspector Gurdial Singh in not joining with him independent witness although available in the locality renders the prosecution case highly doubtful against the petitioner. This view finds support from Ram Narain v. The State, 1974 C.L.R. 436, in which it has been held as under :

"As independent evidence was available which has been withheld, it would cast doubt even on the testimony of the official witness.

Another circumstance which has to be taken into consideration is that while organising the raiding party SubInspector Jaswant Singh and Excise Inspector Ram Avtar had joined only those persons with them who had previous association with the police."

In view of the above quoted authority, it will not be safe to sustain the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the two official witnesses as the same loses its evidentiary value on account of the fact that Dulla Singh joined by the Investigating Officer was a stooge of the police of the worst type. It is unnecessary to advert to the material discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses. These were noticed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court themselves but were conveniently passed over with the observation that they were the discrepancies of truth. I have adverted to the evidence of these witness and am unable to subscribe to the view that these material discrepancies would not raise a doubt about the credibility of the version given by the official witnesses.

For the aforesaid reasons, it appears to me that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are unsustainable. The criminal revision is allowed to and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside.

Revision allowed.