Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

Pritam Singh, petitioner, was convicted by the trial Court for offence under section 9 of the Opium Act for the possesion of 4 kgs. of opium and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years besides to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment thereof to further suffer three months'' rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal filed by the petitioner against the above referred conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 261990. Still being aggrieved against that order he has filed the present revision petition.

The brief resume of the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that ASI Jagdeep Singh along with H.C. Karam Singh and other police officials of Police Station Malerkotla while on parol duty happened to accost Pritam Singh accused in the area of village Nanak Majra. Bhagwan Singh witness was also then accompanying the police party. The accused tried to slip away at the sight of the police party which resulted in his apprehension and search. He was found carrying a clothbag on his right shoulder from which 4 kgs. of opium was recovered. A sample of 10 gms of opium was separated from the bulk of opium and sealed. The Chemical Examiner found the sample to be opium vide his report Exhibit PE. After completion of investigation the accused was arrayed for such allegation.

Before the trial Court the prosecution examined H.C. Karam Singh (PW 1) and A.S.I. Jagdeep Singh (PW 2) besides tendering the formal evidence of MHC Darshan Singh and Constable Ram Murti on affidavits. Bhagwan Singh PW was given up by the prosecution on the pretext of having been won over by the accused.

The revision of the accused before the trial Court in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that of innocence and false implication after arresting him from his village. In support of his defence he examined Karnail Singh DW 1. The trial Court, however, believing the ocular evidence of ASI Jagdeep Singh and HC Karam Singh convicted and sentenced the petitioner as referred to above. The version of the accused and the evidence of Karnail Singh DW 1 was discarded being belated. These findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the appellate Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

Mr. R.S. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the evidence of Police officials alone is not sufficient to sustain the conviction especially when an independent witness namely Bhagwan Singh was present at the time of recovery but was given up by the prosecution on the pretext of having been won over.

The learned counsel for the respondentState, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate Court.

The law is wellsettled on the point that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be discarded simply on the ground of their status as such, unless, there are some circumstances which make the testimony of such witnesses unreliable. In Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) RCR 569, Harbans Singh Rai, J. had set aside the conviction of Dharam Singh for possession of 25 kgs. of opium on the ground that the police was interested to falsely implicate the petitioner as the accused had appeared against the Incharge of the Police Station as a witness in a corruption case. Under these circumstances. the evidence of ASI Puran Chand and H.C. Muni Lal was found unreliable. The nonexamination of Mohinder Singh. independent witness, also weighed with the said Court. The ratio of the decision of the above referred case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as no enmity or motive has been suggested to A.S.I. Jagdeep Singh, for false implication of the accused in a case involving the possession of 4 kgs. of opium. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity, or contradiction in the testimony of the two police officials. The recovery of heavy quantity of opium also renders due assurance to the testimony of the police officers. Thus under these circumstances the nonexamination of Bhagwan Singh, PW is of no consequence, especially when it is not the case of the accused that he agitated his false implication to the higher Authorities just after his being released on bail. Both the lower courts had rightly discarded the evidence of Karnail Singh, DW, to the effect that the accused was arrested from his house in his presence as the arrest of the accused in the presence of Karnail Singh was not even suggested during the crossexamination to any of any of the witnesses. Consequently, no interference on the merits of the case is called for with the findings of the lower Courts.

The question then arises whether the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is required to be given to the accused in view of the reformative trend of modern penology. It is noteworthy that the accused is not a previous convict or offender. He has given his age as 23 years either at the time of framing of charge or at the time of recording his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. by the trial Court. The offence was committed on 17101985, whereas the order of conviction was passed on 831989. Thus it appears that the petitioner was not more than 20 years old at the time to commission of offence. It appears that the allurement for earning easy money had prompted the young petitioner to indulge in the vice of sale of opium. Thus, under these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, undertaking to keep peace; be of good behaviour and to appear for receiving sentence it called upon to do so during this period. The petitioner is on bail. He is directed to furnish the requisite bonds within one month of this order.

Except for the above referred modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands dismissed.