DWARKA DASS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE story for the prosecution in this case briefly is as under:

(2.) AT the trial the petitioner denied the allegations against him and averred that he was arrested by the police from near the Clock Tower, given a heating and involved in this case. In support of his plea he cited three witnesses, namely, Dr. I.B. Neogi (D.W. 1.), Krishan Chand (D.W. 2) and Samand Singh (D.W. 3) who was only tendered for cross examination and was not put any question. Dr. Neogi stated that he examined the petitioner on the 24th October 1961 at the request of the police and found two contusions and two abrasions on his person. Kishan Chand stated that on the day following Dusehra in he was going to make collections when he saw the petitioner in the custody of the police near the Clock -Tower. The prosecution examined Tara Singh, Kundan Singh (P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively) besides Dharam Singh A.S.I. in support of its case.

(3.) SHRI K.L. Jagga. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the term "stock witness" as such has not been defined anywhere but its meaning according to the dictionary is "to keep in reserve" He. however, submitted that simply because a person happens to have appeared as a witness for the police he cannot necessarily be dubbed as a stock witness of the police, nor a presumption can be raised against him of untruthfulness or unreliableness. He further added that as laid down in V. Thevar v. State of Madras : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614, there are three categories of witnesses (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The difficulty arises only in dealing with the third category of witnesses when the Court has to give reasons for believing or disbelieving them. He also submitted that some persons are obliged by law to appear as witnesses in police cases, such as Lambardars, Panches and Chaukidars in the villages, to help the administration and the police in the success of their cases. Such persons by no stretch of imagination can be styled as unreliable. In fact Lambardars and Panches are appointed and elected as such on account of their influence and respect in the villages, and in support of this view he cited a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported as Emperor v. Dipu : A.I.R. 1935 All. 850. In that case the Hon'ble Judges held that Mukhias and Sarpanches are respectable persons and they are appointed to these offices because of their repeatability. It is totally wrong to describe them as 'quasi' police witnesses'. On account of the position held by these men in villages in which they reside, they are in a far better position to know about the bad characters residing in their villages. It is altogether absurd to start with a presumption against them. The proper way of judging the evidence of a witness is to consider the statement made by him and then to arrive at a conclusion whether be has given true evidence or not. Ordinarily, therefore, a evidence of such witnesses is given more weight as compared to others. Of course, if the evidence of such witnesses suffers from some infirmities or blemish of any kind, then the same might be ignored. The State counsel further submitted that there are other witnesses who hang about the police officials, and if any adverse remarks are made by the Courts against such witnesses then in that case their evidence is not entitled to any weight. He also submitted that some persons though not of very night status are zealous and keen to help the, administration in bringing the real offenders to book, and their evidence should not be ignored simply on the ground that they have appeared in a few police cases. It is, therefore, difficult to define the term "stock witness" but if it appears to the Court that a particular person is always at the beck and call of the police and is too willing to state according to their wishes, or that a particular person has appeared in some Court and disbelieved or some strictures were passed against him, or his prosecution was ordered for perjury, such persons could be said to be the stock witnesses of the police and their evidence is not entitled to any weight. Therefore, each case has to be decided on its particular facts and circumstances, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for judging the evidence of a witness, The mere fact that a person happens to have appeared in a few police cases should not necessarily lead the Court to the conclusion or presumption that he is not stating the truth. Similarly the view that the evidence of the police or excise officials should always be looked upon with suspicion is also wrong. In fact their evidence is entitled to as much weight and consideration as the ordinary non -official witnesses, if not more. The same view has been pronounced in Hazara Singh v. The State, (1962) 65 P.L.R. 223, by Dua, J. In that case reliance was also placed by the learned Judges on an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered by Falshaw, J. (as he then was) and J. (sic) Kapur J., in State v. Arjan Singh Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1953. In that Bench decision it was observed that there is a mistaken idea in the minds of many magistrates that police and excise official are not to be relied upon simply because of their official position It was expressly observed that in their case too there must be reasons for disbelieving them.