Major Singh vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Bains, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was convicted under section 9(a) of the Opium Act for keeping in his possession 1 Kilogram and 750 Grams of opium and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Malerkotla, vide his judgment and order dated 5th April, 1982. On appeal his conviction was upheld and sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year and sentence of fine with its default clause was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his judgment dated 13th December, 1982. Hence this revision against his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that on the night between 29th February, 1980 and Ist March, 1980 A.S.I. Malkiat Singh (P.W. 3) along with Head Constable Jagjiwan Singh (P.W.2) and some other Constables was returning to village Kanganwal from canal bridge Kanganwal. At about 2 A.M. when they had covered a distance of about one furlong from the said bridge, the petitioner was noticed coming from the opposite side. Since his movements appeared to be suspicious, he was apprehended and on his personal search opium weighing 1 Kilogram and 750 grams was recovered from his possession by A.S.I. Malkiat Singh (P.W. 3). A sample weighing 50 grams was separated from the whole lot. The sample and the remaining opium had been sealed by A.S.I. Malkiat Singh (P.W.3). The sample was got analysed from the Public Analyst, who vide his report (Exhibit PE) found it to be opium. A case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Dehlon.

At the trial the petitioner denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication. His version is an follows :

"On the night between 27th and 28th February, 1980 Baldev Singh was murdered in the Civil Hospital, Mandi Ahmedgarh. My son Nirmal Singh was suspected for that murder. The police came to our village on 28th February, 1980 at about 7/8 P.M. and took me and my uncle Ujjagar Singh to the Police Station in the presence of Kirpal Singh Sarpanch and Labh Singh Panch. I was interrogated with respect to the whereabouts of Nirmal Singh and was beaten mercilessly. I did not know the whereabouts of Nirmal Singh. On 29th February, 1980 also the police beat me during interrogation. I suffered injuries. I told the police that I will file a complaint against them. On account of this I was falsely implicated in this case on 1st March, 1980. The police obtained police remand for fourfive days. Owing to fear I could not say anything about my beating in the Court also. Later on my son Nirmal Singh was arrested in that case, tried and acquitted. Nothing was recovered from me and a false can has been registered against me."

He also produced in defence Kirpal Singh, Sarpanch of village Mehrna Kalan (D.W. 2); Ujaggar Singh (D.W. 3); Hari Singh (D.W.4) and A.M. H.C. Harbans Singh (D.W.1). He himself appeared in the witnessbox as D.W. 5.

The prosecution case is supported by Head Constable Jagjiwan Singh (P.W.2) and A.S.I. Malkiat SIngh (P.W.3). They have supported prosecution version as given in the earlier part of the judgment, but much reliance cannot be placed on their testimony in the circumstances of the present case. Baldev Singh, ExSarpanch of the village of the petitioner was murdered on the night intervening 27th and 28th February, 1980. Nirmal Singh son of the petitioner was suspected along with two others for that murder. The police came to the village of the petitioner on 28th February, 1980 and took the petitioner and his uncle Ujagar Singh to the Police Station in the presence of Kirpal Singh Sarpanch and Labh Singh. They are interrogated and beaten in order to know the whereabouts of Nirmal Singh. It seems that on account of this reason the petitioner was implicated in the present case. It is in evidence that the son of the petitioner was prosecuted for the murder of Baldev Singh and was convicted by the trial Court but was acquitted by the High Court. The judgment of the High Court vide which the son of the petitioner was acquitted is on record. It is highly improbable that A.S.I. Malkiat Singh and Head Constable Jagjiwan Singh P.Ws. would be patrolling at the dead of night near the canal bridge. Their evidence is also discrepant. According to Jagjiwan Singh (P.W. 2) the petitioner was coming on a bicycle, but according to A.S.I. Malkiat Singh (P.W.3) he was coming on foot. Thus, in this situation no reliance can be placed on the evidence of A.S.I. Malkiat Singh and Head Constable Jagjiwan Singh. It is not uncommon in this part of the country for the police to falsely implicate the persons in the situation of the present case. Moreover, the defence version is supported by Kirpal Singh, who is Sarpanch of village. His evidence has been discarded by the Courts below on the ground that he is his covillager. There is nothing on the record to show that he is related to the petitioner or he is inimical towards the police. Kirpal Singh holds an important position in the village, being a Sarpanch. He has been elected by the adultfranchise of the village and exercises not only the executive powers but also the judicial powers. Due weight has to be given by the Courts to the evidence of such persons. His evidence cannot be discarded just on the ground that he is covillager of the petitionerGenerally persons like Kirpal Singh are interested in keeping peace and maintaining law and order and are also interested in apprehending the criminals. It is only where the police tries to falsely implicate the persons, that they do not support the prosecution version. It is very rarely that they appears as defence witnesses. In the present case it appears that Nirmal Singh, son of the petitioner, was not available. Therefore, in order to put pressure on the petitioner they falsely implicated him in the present case. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner.

In the result the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge and the sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.