PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as under : S.I. Bhagat Singh, SHO of Police Station Siri Hargobindpur, conducted a raid in the area of village Mari Machhia situated on the bank of river Beas accompanied by Jagir Singh, Darshan Singh and Sohail Singh. The petitioner was apprehended near pattan and on interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed a drum containing Lahan in the grove of trees and that he could get the same recovered. Thereafter, he led the investigating party consisting of the above-mentioned persons and produced the drum therefrom. After due investigation, he was sent up for trial under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. He was convicted by Shri V.I.K. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, on 31st July, 1964, of the charge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of its payment to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner felt aggrieved and went up in appeal in the Court of Session, but the same was dismissed by Shri Sarup Chand Goyal, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, on 16th March, 1965. The petitioner still does not feel satisfied and has approached this Court in revision.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced Darshan Singh and Sohail Singh besides S.I. Bhagat Singh. Jagir Singh was given up as won over.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-official witnesses were admittedly the stock witnesses of the police and although the Sub-Inspector had ample time and opportunity to join some other independent and reliable persons with the raiding party, yet he did not do so. Therefore, there was no reliable evidence on the basis of which the conviction of the petitioner could be upheld. This argument was raised in the appellate Court and was repelled keeping in view my observations made in Tarsem Lal v. State,1965 AIR(P&H) 27. It appears, however, that the learned Sessions Judge did not carefully go into that judgment. In that case, the two non-official witnesses who were examined by the prosecution had appeared in some cases only. In the present case, it is admitted by Sohail Singh that he had been joining the police parties for the last three or four years and during this period he might have appeared as a witness in 300 or 400 cases. Darshan Singh, the other witness also admitted that he had been appearing for the police as witness for the last four or five years and that he might have appeared as a witness in about 100 cases. Now, if these two witnesses cannot be said to be stock witnesses I fail to understand who else could be styled as such. Unfortunately, 'a stock witness' has not been defined anywhere, but if a witness gets into the habit of appearing in innumerable cases at any odd time and is always at the beck and call of the police, that witness surely can be said to be a stock witness of the police. It has been laid down time and again that the investigating agency should try to join independent and respectable witnesses of the locality at the time of such raids, but it appears that hardly any attention is paid to the above observations of this Court. In this case, I find that S.I. Bhagat Singh had ample opportunity to requisition the help of some other independent and better witnesses, yet he did not care to do so and was happy to take his stooges along with him. My observations in Tilak Raj v. State,1965 PunLR 128, amply apply to this case. It has been often said that each case depends on its own facts and circumstances and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in appreciating the evidence. For the sake of guidance of the subordinate Courts, sometimes observations are made by the learned Judge of this Court. The main thing which the Courts has to bear in mind is whether from the evidence of the witnesses the conscience of the Court is satisfied about the genuineness of the evidence led before it. I, therefore, feel that the case against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved conclusively from the evidence on the record. He deserves the benefit of doubt which is allowed to him and he is acquitted.