State of Punjab vs Surjit Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

FIR No. 140 recorded against Surjit Singh in Police Station, Bholath at 3.15 P. M. on 9th July, 1991 accuse & Surjit Singh of having been found in possession of a bladder containing 7500 mis. of illicit liquor in it, on his personal starch and of having discovered a drum full of Lahan from his conscious possession in pursuance of his disclosure statement made to the investigating agency. No independent witness of the locality is alleged to have joined the investigation inspite of the request made through Constable Ajit Singh.

Prosecution version of the occurrence was unfolded in Court by Excise Inspector Ajit Singh and Head Constable Ram Chand, both Official witnesses. Learned Trial Court did not believe them and, therefore, acquitted the accused vide its impugned judgment dated 9th October, 1982. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 133DBA of 1983 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG Punjab for appellant State, nemo for the respondent inspite of due service and have carefully perused the relevant record.

Three important and a salient material discrepancies discovered in the deposition of the two official witnesses aforesaid sound the deathknell of the prosecution case set up against the accused before the learned trial Court. If it is accepted that every thing concerning investigation was done at the place of discovery of Lahan then the obvious conclusion would be that the recovery of the drum of Lahan in pursuance of disclosure statement attributed to the accused is a myth and concoction introduced to lend credence to the prosecution evidence and it, therefore, ought to be brushed aside.

Regarding recovery of illicitliquor also it is simply increditable that the accused would himself come out from his tubwell Kotha carrying bladder containing 7500 Mls. of illicit liquor, after knowing that police raiding party was standing outside the Kotha. Course of conduct attributed to the accused being improbable completely discredits the assertion and negatives the alleged recovery.

Material discrepancy regarding the place wherefrom Constable Ajit Singh was sent to call independent witnesses of the locality also negatives the assertion that any attempt in this regard was made by the investigating agency. There has been a violation of the mandatory provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the accused was, therefore, rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned trial Court. Its finding in this regard is, therefore, affirmed

In result, State appeal against acquittal is rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.