MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 16.12.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions, Judge, Sangrur vide which the judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed.

(2.) IT is alleged against the petitioner that he was allegedly found in possession of 5 Kg. of opium without any licence or permit. The learned trial court relied the statements of the police officials and convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated in the judgment itself. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) THE solitary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no independent witness has been associated and that there is a material discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses. I am not in agreement with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The recovery stands proved from the statements of PW1 Constable Satnam Singh, PW2 HC Mahavir Singh and PW3 Dr. Tarlok Singh. The opium has also been confirmed from the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PD. The recovery is heavy and it is not believable that it has been planted upon the petitioner by the Investigating Officer from his personal resources. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Court that it is a matter of common knowledge that people these days do not want to incur the wrath of enmity and do not want to come forward to support the prosecution case. The public officials have no axe to grind against the petitioner. Even the discrepancy which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be held to be material. Every discrepancy is not to be considered as fatal for the prosecution. Only the material discrepancy, if any, is to be examined. Honest discrepancy can always be there even in the statements of truthful witnesses. Therefore, I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgment.