State of Punjab vs Sukhdev Singh

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

Sukhdev Singh, accused respondent was found carrying 35 bottles of illicit liquor in a rubber tube on 29.6.1984 when Head Constable Karnail Singh of Police Station Khuhian Sarwar alongwith Head Constable Harnam Singh and Constable Partap Singh accosted him at about 3.00 p.m in the area of village Panjawa. A sample of 375 Mls. of illicit liquor was separated and sealed from the contents of the rubber tube. The remaining liquor was also measured and sealed in the rubber tube. The seal after use was entrusted to Head Constable Harnam Singh. A case under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was got registered against Sukhdev Singh accused through Ruqa PB. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide his report Ext. PD found it to be illicit liquor. After completion of investigation, Sukhdev Singh accused, was arrested and arraigned for trial on such allegation. Before the trial court, in order to prove its case the Prosecution examined HC Karnail Singh (PW 1) and HC Harnam Singh(PW2). Besides examining formal evidence of MHC Mohinder Singh and Constable Jagjit Singh on affidavit Exts PE and PF, respectively, the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext PD was also tendered. The version of Sukhdev Singh accused, before the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that of innocence and false implication. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

The trial Court acquitted the accused respondent by holding that as HC Karnail Singh has failed to depose about depositing the case property in an intact condition with MHC Mohinder Singh and thus the link evidence was missing. Being aggrieved against that order, the State has filed the present appeal against acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Admittedly, HC Karnail singh alongwith other Police officials was proceeding from village Panjawa towards Ganj Canal in the area of village Panjawa in connection with patrolling which in turn implies the detection of crime and if that is so, then it was expected of this Police Officer to have joined some non official witnesses of area. Strangely enough he has not done so. When confronted with this infirmity, HC Karnail singh gave his explanation that he had deputed Constable Partap Singh to call for some residents of village Panjawa but none of the residents of that village was prepared to join the investigation. When this matter was probed further, during cross examination he admitted having not taken any action against those persons of village Panjawa who refused to join the investigation of this case. The matter does not rest here as he has not even recorded this fact in the case diary. Thus, it appears that as a matter of fact, Head Constable Karnail Singh has not taken any step to join any witnesses from the locality. No doubt the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground of their status as such if it otherwise passes the test of reliability. But in the case in hand, the possibility of the accused having been arrested from his village or some other place and recovery of liquor in some other manner, cannot be ruled out as HC Karnail Singh has failed to prepare the personal search memo of the accused. A person carrying 35 bottles of illicit liquor is expected to carry some money with him also but in the seizure memo Ext. PA, there is no indication of the recovery of any money or any other article from the person of accused. H C Karnail Singh has admitted during cross examination that he has not prepared any separate memo of personal search of the accused. Thus, this circumstance clearly spells out the possibility of the recovery of liquor in some other manner and arrest of the accused from some other place. Obviously, the recovery of liquor from personal search of the accused was shown in order to pin point his exclusive possession. In view of this infirmity in the case, the evidence of the Police officials alone is not sufficient to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

In view of the above reasoning, the view taken by the trial court is not of much consequence, although the findings of the trial court regarding missing of link evidence are not sustainable because H C Karnail Singh had handed over the seal to H C Harnam Singh after sealing the sample and case property at the spot and the mere omission on his part to state that he had kept it intact till its deposit with MHC Mohinder Singh on the same day, would be of no consequence unless the trial court had disbelieved the version of this witness qua handing over the seal to Head Constable Harnam Singh but the trial Court has not given any finding in this regard.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal against acquittal and the same stands dismissed.