ROMESH PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as under :-

(2.) To support the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Sarvshri Karnail Singh, Excise Inspector, S.N. Tewari-Excise Sub-Inspector, Bawa Singh, A.S.I. and Pala Singh, Inspector. The petitioner, when examined under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code denied the charge against him and alleged enmity with Shri S.N. Tewari and examined two witnesses in his defence. According to the defence, Shri Tewari had raided the house of Sarvshri Madan Lal Prem Chand of the village of the petitioner and got a case registered against them for assaulting him. It is stated that a police officer came to make an enquiry in the village of the petitioner in connection with that case, in which he supported the plea taken by Servshri Madan Lal and Prem Chand. It is alleged that this case has been concocted against the petitioner because of the above reason. The case was urged at considerable length by the parties. Admittedly, the prosecution examined two Excise officials named above, to prove their case. It is admitted that the Excise officials had received information a day earlier that opium would be coming by train and that on be the day of occurrence they had sent someone to make enquiries from the Railway Station to find out if someone had taken the delivery of the same, which evidently shows that the Excise officials were aware of the fact that some opium was to come to the Railway Station and some one must take delivery of the same. They had, therefore, ample time at their disposal to join some independent witness with them which they had, without any sufficient reason, failed to do. The point, therefore, which requires consideration by this Court is whether under the circumstances it will be safe to rely on the officials witnesses only who, naturally, are interested, and maintain the conviction of the petitioner. I feel that it will be laying a hazardous proposition if we do so. It is true that official witnesses are not to be disbelieved simply because they happen to be officials, but it depends on the facts of each case. The law is well set that while going for such raids and recoveries at least two respectable non-officials are to be joined with the party. As stated above, although there was sufficient time for the Excise officials to join in respectable non-official witnesses with them, but for one reason or the other they did not do so.

(3.) It was also agitated before me that if, in fact, the allegations against the petitioner were true, the prosecution could have atleast examined the Assistant Station Master from whom the petitioner took delivery of the opium who could have thrown some light on the subject but, unfortunately, that Assistant Station Master has been given up by the prosecution for reasons best known to them. I therefore, cannot subscribe to the view taken by the two Courts below that, under these circumstances it will be safe to conduct the petitioner in a case of this type especially when he has taken a plea of enmity against Shri S.N. Tewari, and examined two witnesses in support of this version. It is not for the petitioner to show conclusively that his defence is true. It is, however, enough if the petitioner is able to show that the defence taken by him may be true. I, for the reasons given above give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquit him.