SITARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE prosecution in order to support its case examined Inspector Harmail Singh-PW1 and Sub Inspector Darshan Singh-PW2 who in their statements, stated that the accused had been given an offer under Section 50 of the Act and had advised him that he could, if he so wished, be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and as the accused had replied that he had full faith in the police, he had been searched by the Police Officers. These two witnesses also deposed to the recovery of opium in the manner already set out above. Inspector Amrik Singh-PW5 stated that the accused as well as the case property had been produced before him by S.I. Darshan Singh and that he had verified the facts and had sealed the case property with his own seal. Jagjit Singh-PW6, a Clerk from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, gave evidence to the effect that the tractor from which the opium had been recovered, belonged to one Gian Singh son of Bakshish Singh of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Nawan Shaher, District Ropar.

(3.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, had been complied with. It was also found that the case property had been adequately sealed and kept secure after its seizure. It was further observed that as the recovery had been made in December, 1988 and the prosecution evidence was being recorded after 3 or 4 years, some minor discrepancies in the statements given by the Police Officers could be ignored. The defence version was held to be un-acceptable as Dr. Kanwaljit Singh-DW1, who had examined the accused on 14th December, 1988 had found that his injuries had been caused within 12 hours and the explanation had been tendered by S.I. Darshan Singh, who deposed that as the accused was being taken for some additional recovery pursuant to his disclosure statement, the tractor on which the accused had been travelling had overturned injuring him in the process. The trial Court, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) for the offence charged and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Hence this appeal.