Kehar Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs. 5000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act. He carried an appeal to the Court of Sessions where it failed substantially inasmuch as the substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 11/2 years to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of imprisonment in default or payment of fine was reduced from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution case is that on 17th April, 1981, Head Constable Des Raj of Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, received a secret information that the petitioner was working a still. He raided a place in the river bed in the area of village Megha. The petitioner was found working a still there. The component parts of the still were taken into possession. The petitioner was apprehended and after due investigations sent up for trial.

In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner pleaded false implication at the instance of one Mohinder Singh. In his defence he produced Ballu Singh DW. 1 who supported the defence person.

The prosecution case mainly consists of the statements of two official witnesses, namely, Subhash Chander Constable PW 1 and Des Rai Head Constable PW 2. Admittedly, it was a case of secret information but Des Raj Head Constable did not care to join any one from the public with the police party. Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken me through the evidence of these two police officials. He has pointed out a number of discrepancies. There are two main discrepancies. One is regarding the place where the secret information was received. PW 1 Subhash Chander Constable stated that the information was received at the canal bridge of Sabuana while Des Raj Head Constable PW 2 stated that the information was received in village Sabuana which is at a distance of one kilometre from the place pointed out by Subhash Chander PW 1. Both the prosecution witnesses are again discrepant regarding the place of recovery as well. PW 1 Subhash Chander Constable stated that place of recovery was 5 or 7 karams from village Megha while according to PW 1 Des Raj, the place of recovery is more than a furlong from village Megha. So, in view of the fact that there is no independent corroboration and that the statements of these prosecution witnesses are discrepant on a number of points, I think that the petitioner deserves the benefit of doubt. Consequently I allow this revision and acquit the petitioner of the charge under section 6 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The fine, if paid, would be refunded to petitioner.