Manbir S/o Bhura @ Paryog Singh and anr. vs State of Haryana

S. S. Dewan, J.—Manbir and Ram Niwas petitioners were charged under Section 64(i)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act for having been found in possession of a working still, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and having been found guilty thereof, each of them was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, upheld their conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, they have now come up in revision.

It is unnecessary to recount the facts of the case. The prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of Surinder Singh PW 1. Excise Inspector Yash Pai PW 2, Assistant Sub Inspector Pokhar Mal PW 3 and Head Constable Kapoor Singh PW 4. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case.

There is no doubt that the three official witnesses in their statement have fully supported the prosecution story but the question is as to how far reliance can be placed on their testimony. The only independent witness Surinder Singh PW 1 associated by the Investigating Officer had gone hostile and refused to support the prosecution case. Surinder Singh had categorically denied the factum of his joining the raiding party headed by the Assistant Sub Inspector Pokhar Mal. He also denied having signed any paper during the investigation of this case and claimed that his specimen signatures be sent to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison. Surprisingly, the matter was not taken to the logical end. Neither the prosecutor nor the Court got the specimen signatures of the witness compared with the signatures on the recovery memo. The comparison of the signatures would have proved categorically whether the witness was telling the truth or the police witnesses were telling the truth. This has created a room of doubt in favour of the petitioners. Perhaps Surinder Singh''s name had been grafted in the recovery memo. It might be altogether false. However, no final opinion need be expressed or the same.

Extending to the petitioners the benefit of doubt, I order their acquittal, setting aside their conviction and sentence. The petition is thus allowed.