STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, on 20.8.1994 while acquitting Randhir Singh-accused-respondent of the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act, is under challenge in the present appeal, which stands admitted pursuant to grant of leave. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused-respondent suffered a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed 16 bottles of illicit liquor under the earth by digging a pit near the bridge ahead of railway crossing and no body except him had any knowledge about the same. He could get the same recovered after pointing out. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by SI Mange Ram, who at that time was accompanied by one Fateh Singh. In furtherance of his disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the place of concealment and got recovered 16 bottles of liquor. After effecting the recovery, SI Mange Ram sent ruqa Ex.PA to the Police Station, upon which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded in Police Station, Narwana. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. Vide order dated 22.5.1981, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that it was an off-shoot of the main case registered at Police Station Narwana, under Sections 302/328/120- B/467/468 and 109 IPC and, therefore, required to be tried with the same. It may be mentioned here that the main case was registered on account of some causalities in the area after consuming illicit liquor. Pursuant to the commitment, Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 10.11.1981 framed charge against the accused under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Mange Ram, who by then stood promoted as Inspector and tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.PF of MHC Balwan Singh and Ex.PG of Constable Ram Kala besides reports Ex.PH, PH/1 and PH/2 prepared by the Chemical Examiner. One Jai Singh, who had earlier informed the police about the casualties in the area on account of consumption of illicit liquor and had also accompanied the police party, was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. Similarly, the prosecution gave up Fateh Singh, who had accompanied the police party and was witness to the making of the disclosure statement as well as the recovery of the illicit liquor.

(2.) In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in support of his plea. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the accused has been wrongly acquitted by the trial Court despite the fact that on account of consumption of illicit liquor about 28 people had died. The prosecution case stood proved from the testimony of PW1 Inspector Mange Ram besides proving of the link evidence by way of affidavits Ex.PF of MHC Balwan Singh and Ex.PG of Constable Ram Kala. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the material recovered from the accused was found to be illicit liquor. Therefore, the appeal be accepted and the accused-respondent be convicted and sentenced for the charge under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite his due service.

(3.) The prosecution has relied upon the sole testimony of PW1 Mange Ram, Inspector. Jai Singh and Fateh Singh, who were also shown to be present at the time of making of the disclosure statement by the accused and recovery of the illicit liquor were not examined. The explanation given by the prosecution in this regard is that they were won over by the accused. Despite the same, the prosecution was required to produce them before the Court and then to point out the material for concluding about their having been won over by the accused. Their non-examination during the recording of the prosecution evidence casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. PW1 Inspector Mange Ram was examined on 11.3.1987. On that day he stated that the case property had not been produced in the Court. On the adjourned date, i.e., 4.8.1987, his attention was brought to the bottles Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. He then stated that he could not say whether these bottles related to the accused as the original labels affixed by him on the bottles were missing. Even the seals were also not legible and clear. Under these circumstances, the case property does not stand connected with the present case. In the absence of the same, affidavits of MHC Balwan Singh and Constable Ram Kala cannot prop up the case of the prosecution.