KABAL SINGH ALIAS GHUK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KABAL Singh son of Ajit Singh, aged 24 years, resident of village Saron, District Amritsar, was convictised by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran, under section 9(a) of the Opium Act, and was sentenced to 2-1/2 years Rigorous Imrisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said decision of the trial Court, succeeded partly to the extent that while the conviction of the petitioner under section 9(a) of the Opium Act was affirmed, his sentence was reduced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for four months. The present Revision Petition is directed against the said verdict of the lower appellate Court.

(2.) STATED briefly, the prosecution version is to the effect that on June 24, 1981 at about 4 a.m., Inspector Ravinder Nath Misra (P.W.2) accompanied by Sub Inspector Ranjodh Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh (P.W.1) and some other Police Officials went in a Government Truck from Detective Staff Office, Tarn Taran towards, Village Saron, for the purpose of detecting opium smuggling. The party reached at a place about three furlongs from Village Saron when they noticed the petitioner going on foot. The allegation is that on seeing the Police Truck, the petitioner diverted towards the Kacha path on the left siide. He was apprehended on suspicious and as a result of his search conducted by the Inspector, the petitioner was found carrying a gunny bag, Exhibit P-1, which contained opium weighing 25 Kgs. wrapped in a glazed paper. A sample of the article was taken which, on subsequent analysis, was stated to be opium.

(3.) ANOTHER circumstance highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the same sequence is that according to both the :Police Officers, S.I. Ranjodh Singh had also been joined with the police party at the time of the raid and this officer also witnessed the recovery. A.S.I. Harbhajan Singh (P.W.1) stated in his cross-examination that he did not know the petitioner earlier but S.I. Ranjodh Singh was known to the petitioner before hand. For unexplained reasons, S.I. Ranjodh Singh, who was obviously an important witness has not been produced at the trial. This is another suspicious circumstance in the whole episode. The learned counsel has also made a reference to certain discrepancies inter se the statements of the two prosecution witnesses. These discrepancies, viewed individually, may not seem to be very material but in the backdrop of the circumstances noticed above, they do assume some importance, because the Court has to be doubtly sure about the culpability of an accused, when this conclusion has to be drawn from the evidence of the police officers, who had intentionally avoided the association of an independent witness, such a witness being easily available when the party left for the raid I find support for this view in Baldev Raj v. The fine, if deposited by him, shall be refunded.