STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS State appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent-accused who was sent up for trial for the offence under Section 409, India Penal Code.The accused was appointed at Punsup Centre, Zira since 10.12.1981. It is the prosecution case that from 22.11.1982 the accused was made Incharge of the distribution of the cement at the said Centre. The accused is said to have functioned in that capacity till vide order dated 26.11.1984, he was transferred to Punsup Centre, Talwandi Bhai. The accused joined duties at his new posting on 28.11.1984. However, while leaving the Punsup Centre at Zira, the accused had not handed over complete charge by physical verification of the cement of which he was Incharge. Therefore, he was repeatedly called upon to hand over the charge by counting the cement bags. The papers before us indicate that on 16.1.1985 in the presence of the accused and other officers of the Punsup Centre, Zira, the handing over of the charge and taking over of it, took place, and in the course of that it transpired that in all 1949 bags were short in stock. The prosecution claims that the accused then gave in writing and admitted his responsibility in respect of 1900 out of these bags. Since the accused did not account for these shortage of bags amounting to Rs. 1,36,430/- a report was made. On the basis of that by letter dated 4.4.1985, information was sent to the police. Consequently, offence came to be registered on 27.11.1985.

(2.) THE trial Court was of the view that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the accused was ever appointed as an Incharge of distribution of cement, or that he had dominion over the said cement stock. The trial Court further found that the statement in the form of the confessional statement of the accused was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and there is an indication that these statements must have been brought subsequent to the date on which these are purported to have been made. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of A.C. Bhikhan PW 7 who came forward to state that the accused had dominion over the cement in question. The trial Court therefore acquitted the accused by judgment dated 21.12.1989. Aggrieved by that judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE Deputy Advocate-General further brought our attention to the confessional statement by the accused. It may he recalled here that as per the prosecution case, on 16.1.1985, in the presence of the accused, the physical stock of the cement was taken and shortage of about 1949 bags was noticed. It was further claimed by the accused that on that date the accused also gave a confessional statement in writing to the effect that he was responsible for the shortage. On the same day the charge list had been prepared and signed by the person taking over the charge, as given by the accused, and in that charge list also shortage of the cement was mentioned. It may be mentioned here that the said confessional statement and the charge list bear the date 16.1.1985. The accused states that these documents have been got signed from him by his superiors who exerted pressure on him in order to screen off the real offender who was in good books of District Manager, Mr. A.C. Bhikhan. The learned trial Court examined these papers and the attending circumstances and arrived at the conclusion that the claim put-forth by the accused that these documents have been brought about subsequently, was borne out by preponderance of probabilities. In that respect, we would refer to letter Exhibit DM dated 17.1.1985, which was addressed by the District Manager and sent to the Managing Director of the Basur Division Headquarters. In that letter dated 17.1.1985, the District Manager in clear terms stated that the accused was keeping out of circulation since about a week. Second paragraph of the said letter further states that in the presence of certain officers of Punsup, Zira, the godowns were opened by applying the keys and by breaking open the locks in case the keys were not available. The said latter nowhere indicates that accused was also present on such occasion dated 16.1.1985. It also does not indicate that a charge list had been prepared on which the accused had also put signature. It also does not indicate that accused made any confessional statement in respect of the responsibility of the shortage. On the other hand, the said letter indicates that accused was not at all available since about a week prior to 17.1.1985. In view of the said letter, it is clear that the confessional statement and charge list, both bearing date 16.1.85, in fact had not come into existence on 16.1.85, but had come into existence subsequent to it, and obviously were ante-dated. This fact coupled with the fact that the accused was a very junior person at the end of hierarchy, stands to reason and bears out the preponderance of the probabilities that the accused put signatures on those statements because he could not resist the dictates of his senior officers. The fact, however, remains that the stock of the cement had been taken in the absence of the accused, though there is a deliberate effort to show that at that time accused was present and executed certain documents amounting to confession. The efforts to get such a type of document certainly militates against the veracity of witnesses who testified in support of such statements.