BHANA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHANA Ram petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the opium Act for having in his possession 10 kgs. of opium and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, or, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda. On appeal the conviction and sentence have been maintained by a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dated January 5, 1991. Bhana Ram has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11th of January, 1978, on receipt of secret information that the petitioner was selling opium in village Jaga Ram Tirath, Assistant Sub -Inspector Surnjan Singh alongwith some other police officials went to the said village to apprehend him. By that time the petitioner had left for Bhatinda. Be that as it may, the petitioner was apprehended and brought to the Police Post Talwandi Sabu where he was interrogated by Suranjan Singh and he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 16 kgs. of opium from the specified place of concealment. The sample sent to the Chemical Examiner was found to be Opium. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Jagjit Singh, P.W. 1, Baldev Singh, P.W. 2 and Assistant Sub Inspector Suranjan Singh, P.W. 3. The plea taken by the petitioner was that Suranjan Singh wanted to borrow his car for his private use but he did not oblige him and on that amount, he was falsely implicated in this case. He examined Roshan Lal in defence.

(3.) THE prosecution case herein seems to bristle with a number of infirmities, the collective effect of which inevitably is that its case obviously was clouded with a doubt. The first significant thing to notice herein is that the testimony of Jagjit Singh, P.W.1 and Baldev Singh, P.W.2, is at variance so for as the disclosure statement allegedly made by the petitioner is concerned. Jagjit Singh merely stated that the petitioner told the Investigating Officer that he had 10 kgs. of opium in his kothi at Rama about which he only knew whereas Baldev Singh, P.W. 2, stated that in his disclosure statement, the petitioner stated that he had kept 10 kgs. of opium in a tin which was lying buried in his new kothi at Rama, and offered to get the same recovered. As far as the handing over of the seal after its use is concerned, Jagjit Singh stated that the seal was kept by Assistant Sub -Inspector Suranjan Singh whereas Baldev Singh stated that the seal after use was handed over to him by Suranjan Singh. These discrepancies were, however, noticed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court but were conveniently passed over with the observation that these discrepancies were too trivial to be taken notice of. I have adverted to the evidence of both the witnesses and am unable to subscribe to the view that the material contradictions would not raise a doubt about the credibility of the version given by the two witnesses. It is also borne out from the evidence of Baldev Singh. P.W., that he had appeared as a witness in 20 or 25 cases. The conduct of Assistant Sub -Inspector Suranjan Singh in joining such type of convenient witnesses also renders the prosecution case highly doubtful against the petitioner.