AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Amar Singh son of Santa Singh against the concurrent decision of Courts below as per which the petitioner was convicted under section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further R.I. for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution version is to the effect that on 26.9.1979 Sewa Singh Head Constable (PW-2) associated with him Kulwant Singh Excise Inspector (PW 1) and some other police officials in a raiding party. The party held a picket near the octroi post, Moga on the road leading to Zira. The appellant was found coming on the road. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away and this aroused suspicion. He was detained and his person was searched. A tube containing 75000 mls of illicit liquor was found to be carried on the cycle of the petitioner . After obtaining a sample of the article the remaining liquor was transferred into 100 bottles. Both the sample and the bottles were duly sealed and taken into possession. The report of the Chemical Examiner received later confirmed that the recovered article was illicit liquor. The petitioner was then prosecuted with the result already indicated.

(3.) IT is on the second submission that the learned counsel for the petitioner is on more sound footing. The counsel has referred to the testimony of the two eye-witnesses of the recovery and has pointed out a number of discrepancies and contradictions in their deposition. These discrepancies and contradictions have also been noticed by the Courts below. It seems that these were not given due importance and were brushed aside solely on the ground that the witnesses have made deposition after a lapse of long time from the date of the occurrence. This is not correct approach to the matter. If the conviction is to be based on the testimony of the official witnesses alone it becomes all the more necessary that their word of mouth must qualify the test of cross-examination. The discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, as pointed out are quite material. The witnesses have differed on various aspects of the prosecution version namely the time it took before the petitioner was apprehended, the mode of transport adopted by the raiding party for going to the spot and coming back from there and in regard to the availability at the time of the occurrence. These discrepancies cannot be lightly brushed aside. In fact, they give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding the matter and the benefit of doubt has to go to the petitioner.