Ram Singh vs The State

Bedi, J.—The Petitioner Ram Singh, resident of Baba Bakala, was sent up for trial u/s 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 for having been found in possession of 668 ounces of illicit liquor. Shri Shiv Singh, Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, who held the trial, found the charge proved against him, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to eight months, rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, vide his order dated the 24th August 1962. The Petitioner felt aggrieved against that order and approached the Court of Session in appeal. Shri Banwari Lal, Additional sessions Judge, Amritsar, partly accepting the appeal, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from 8 months to 3 months rigorous imprisonment plus the fine imposed by the trial Court, vide his order dated the 12th September 1962. The Petitioner still feels dissatisfied and has approached this Court in revision.

The story for the prosecution as given by the various P. Ws. briefly runs as under. On receipt of information A. S. I. Harcharan Das organised a raiding party on the l5th December 1961 and raided the house of the Petitioner in village Baba Bakala. He was at that time accompanied by Durga Das, Dhanna Singh and Ujagar Singh P. Ws. besides some others. It is alleged that the Petitioner was present at his house when the raiding party went there. He was taken into custody and interrogated by the A. S. I. when he made a disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same led the investigating party to a Kotha of his house and from there produced three rubber bladders containing the above mentioned quantity of illicit liquor. The case against the Petitioner was immediately registered and he was sent up for trial which ended in the above-mentioned result.

The Petitioner when examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the allegations against him and attributed this case to his enmity with Ujagar Singh P. W. and Inderjit Head Constable son of Santa Singh of Baba Bakala. In support of his contention he examined some witnesses in defence.

The prosecution examined Durga Das, Dhanna Singh and Ujagar Singh P. Ws. besides Harcharan Das A. S. I. Admittedly Durga Das and Dhanna Singh belong to Amritsar, situated at a distance of about 25 miles, where they carry on their business. It is also admitted that they have been appearing as witnesses for the prosecution in other cases as well. Ujagar Singh, according to the finding of the Court below, was definitely inimical to the Petitioner, hence no reliance was placed on him. The conviction of the Petitioner was only maintained on the strength of the evidence of the above-mentioned witnesses. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urged that the alleged recovery is false and that the case has been manoeuvred or fabricated at the instance of Inderjit Head Constable son of Santa Singh, Brahmin of Baba Bakala with whom the Petitioner alleged enmity. In support of this allegation he has examined some defence witnetsess also. To me the argument of the Petitioner''s counsel seems to have considerable force. Inderjit above-mentioned was neither cited in this case as a witness nor he had anything to do with it, but his presence at the time of the alleged recovery, along with the raiding party, has been established although Ujagar Singh P. W. tried to suppress it. Now, why and what for inderjit was with the raiding party, one is left guessing and the only plausible conclusion at which one can arrive is that he was behind this case. Jagat Singh, a local man, was also cited as a witness of the recovery, but he was given up by the prosecution as won over. Baba Bakala is a fairly big place and there was no dearth of independent witnessess there. Why and for what special reasons Dhanna Singh and Durga Das P. Ws. were imported from Amritsar to witness the disclosure statement and the recovery cannot be reasonably explained. From the circumstances it appears that they are too willing to make any statement which the police desires from them. A judgment of P. D. Sharma J, reported as Achhar Singh v. State (1962) 64 P.L.R. 91, was cited belore me in which the learned Judge following Sadlu Vs. Emperor, observed that the police officer making a search must avail of the services of respectable persons of the neighbourhood where they are available. He should not take with him persons of doubtful integrity from distant places. The observations made above aptly apply to the present case. It might wall be said that at any rate the A. S. I. who investigated this case had no minus against the Petitioner, why therefore his statement should not be accepted. The reason is obvious. Inderjit Head Constable and the A. S. I. who investigated this case belong to the same department and may be the A. S. I. also joined hands in fabricating this recovery at the instance of inderjit to oblige him. There is evidence on the record that the relations of Santa Singh, father of Inderjit, with the Petitioner are not very happy, and the presence of Inderjit at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery affirms the above allegation. There is, therefore, no satisfactory evidence on the record on the basis of which we could hold this recovery to have been satisfactorily proved. The Petitioner is, therefore, given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.