Passi alias Parkash vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

This criminal revision emanates from the judgment dated 6.10.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 30 days rigorous imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence as noticed earlier, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision in this Court.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.1.1984, a police party headed by P.W.4 S.I. Siri Chand was present near the turning of village Neja Dela at about 5 p.m. The petitioner was seen coming from the side of that village and on seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. On suspicion, the petitioner was apprehended and the bag which he was carrying was searched. Illicit liquor was recovered from the same. A separate case under the Excise Act was got registered against the petitioner. On further search, .12 bore country made pistol was recovered from him for which he had no licence. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PC after preparing its rough sketch. The petitioner was arrested. Sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner was obtained from the District Magistrate. After the completion of the necessary investigation, the petitioner was sent up to face trial.

After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the incriminating allegations against him and took up a stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his neighbour Kundan Singh with whom he had a dispute.

I have heard Shri D.K. Khanna, A.A.G., Haryana and perused the record.

The first snag in the prosecution case is that although the police party was on patrol duty in connection with the excise and arms checking yet it did not join any independent witness. The Investigating Officer, in this case had sufficient time and opportunity to join any independent witness and it was imperative upon him to get independent corroboration to reinforce the case of the prosecution against the petitioner. I am not oblivious of the fact that the nonjoining of any independent witness does not ipsofacto discredit the prosecution case but it surely casts a dent in the same.

Further, P.W.2 ASI Ram Singh and P.W.4 SI Siri Chand stated that they had proceeded from Sirsa at about 11/12 noon, whereas P.W.3 H.C. Hari Singh, stated that they had proceeded from CIA Staff, Sirsa at about 11.30 a.m. Again ASI Ram Singh and SI Siri Chand stated that village Neja Dela was at a distance of about two kilometres from the place of recovery whereas H.C. Hari Singh has given the said distance to be 1/2 kilometre. ASI Ram Singh stated that vehicles were coming and going on the road but S.I. Siri Chand stated that none was coming and going on the road when the petitioner was apprehended. ASI Ram Singh and S.I. Siri Chand stated that the petitioner was apprehended near the turning of village Neja Dela, whereas H.C. Hari Singh stated that the petitioner was arrested near village Neja Dela. ASI Ram Singh stated that it took about 2/12 hours in completing the writing work on the spot, whereas this time has been given to be three or four hours by H.C. Hari Singh and 21/2 to 3 hours by S.I. Siri Chand.

In case the Investigating Officer had joined any independent witness, these discrepancies would not have affected the prosecution case much but these contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses assume significance keeping in view of the fact that there is no independent corrobotation of the statements of the official witnesses who are naturally interested in the success of the case.

Another infirmity in the prosecution case is that in the sketch plan Exhibit PB, the measurement of the pistol allegted to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner has not been given. As such, there is a great suspicion regarding the identity of the pistol produced in the trial Court.

As a necessary corollary of the above discussion is that the evidence led by the prosecution against the petitioner is too slender to incriminate him. Therefore, by accepting this criminal revision and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the Courts below, I acquit him of the charge framed against him.

The bail bends and surety bonds of the petitioner, if any, shall stand discharged.

Revision allowed.