BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Bahadur Singh son of Tara Singh and Ram Singh son of Dyal Singh. The two petitioners along with their co-accused Gurminder Singh son of Sher Singh were tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. The two petitioners were convicted under section 61(1)(e)of the Punjab Excise Act,for which offence they were sentenced to one year's Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners have been ordered to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for three months each. Their co-accused Gurminder Singh was, however, acquitted with the finding that he had been falsely implicated. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and hence the present Revision Petition.

(2.) MR . Ajmer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has made certain submissions which may be noticed in turn. It is contended in the first instance that the finding of the Courts below in regard to the false implication of Gurminder Singh co-accused, goes a long way to show that the case against the two petitioners was also not free from reasonable doubt. There is indeed substance in this argument. If the Investigation Agency chooses to implicate an innocent person by alleging a specific part to that person in the occurrence, the prosecution version does indeed become doubtful. This apart, it is submitted that there are other material discrepancies in the evidence of the two witnesses, both of whom are Police Officers. For example, according to Head Constable Harbans Singh (P.W. 2), the working still was captured from inside the kitchen, whereas Inspector Satbir Singh (P.W. 1) stated that the working still was detected from near the hand-pump. It is also significant to note in the site plan Exhibit PC,no kitchen has been shown and all that is mentioned, is that some fuel wood was lying nearhand-pump. The other discrepancy pertain to the alleged search conducted by the reading party on the person of Gurminder Singh, co-accused of the petitioners. Inspector Satbir Singh stated that 48 gms. of opium was recovered from the said accused on his personal search, which was conducted inside the house. As against this, Head Constable Harbans Singh had deposed that the said accused was in the verandah of the house.In a case like the present where the prosecution has sought to rely upon the testimony of only official witnesses, these discrepancies assume significance. The learned counsel has also highlighted that one independent witness Pooran Singh was associated just outside the house, but he was produced as a prosecution witness, having been given up at the trial.The lower appellate Court had not adopted the correct perspective by observing that it was for the petitioners to examine this witness in defence.