BILLU @ NEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/ - or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul. On appeal, his conviction and sentence of fine was upheld but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE conviction of the petitioner in this case cannot be sustained as it is based on only the evidence of ASI Joginder Singh and ASI Bakhshish Singh PWs, although there was opportunity for the prosecution to join independent witnesses. According to these official witnesses the petitioner was seen standing on the bridge of the water -course in the area of village Mehraj and on seeing them he tried to slip away, but he was apprehended and on his search, a 'Jhola' was recovered in which 4kgs of Opium was found. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and took up the defence that he was arrested from the village in the presence of Mohinder Singh Sarpanch (DW 1) and Labh Singh and the Opium was falsely planted on him. Mohinder Singh Sarpanch has supported the defence version as DW 1. There is nothing on the record to show anything against the Sarpanch. Mohinder Singh DW is the head of the village being elected by the majority of the electorate in the village. He holds a responsible position. Not only that he has executive powers but the Panchayats in Punjab under the Gram Panchayats Act have also judicial powers. No Sarpanch would like to falsely come forward to defend a person like the petitioner as generally every citizen is interested in eradicating the evil of offences under the Excise Act and the Opium Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda did not take into consideration the evidence of Mohinder Singh Sarpanch. Of late it has been observed that the police in this part of the country tries to plant Opium falsely on innocent persons. On the day of the occurrence, the police also raided the house of one Mithu Singh in the village of the petitioner and they were accompanied by Puran Chaukidar. In fact, they could also associate the other respectables of the village, but they did not do so and even Puran Chaukidar was not produced. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to maintain the conviction of the petitioner on the evidence of the two police officials. There is general decline of integrity of the police in the recent years in this part of the country. The only reassuring circumstance in such cases is the corroboration of the testimony of the police witnesses by the independent witnesses of the locality. Although in certain circumstances reliance can be placed on the official witnesses where no independent witnesses are available and there is no animus against the police officials, but in the present case, the prosecution had ample opportunity to associate with them the respectables from the village, but they have not done so. Moreover, Mohinder Singh Sarpanch (DW 1) has falsified the version given by the official witnesses as according to him the petitioner was arrested from the village and not at the bridge of the water -course as alleged by the prosecution.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly he is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.