STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE primary question involved in this appeal against acquittal is as to whether the evidence of the official witnesses is to be looked at with suspicion simply because no independent witness is taken along with the raiding party.

(2.) AMAR Singh, Head Constable, accompanied by Excise Inspector Gurbans Singh and the other excise staff proceeded to conduct an excise raid at village Kanganwal on January 9, 1973, at about 10. 30 A. M. When they reached the canal bridge near the Kanganwal distributory they noticed the accused (respondent) coming from the opposite side who on seeing the police party tried to slip away. He was, however, stopped by the Head Constable and from a search of his person 80 grams of opium wrapped in a piece of paper was recovered from the front pocket of his shirt. It was converted into two parcels and taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P. A. One parcel of 10 grams was sent for chemical examination and its contents were found to be opium.

(3.) IN Dalip Singh's case 1973 Chand LR 398 (supra) 1750 grams of Opium was recovered under similar circumstances from the search of the person of the accused. At the trial the prosecution to prove the recovery relied on the statements of Joginder Singh. Sub -Inspector and Gurbachan Singh, Head Constable. The accused was convicted by the learned Magistrate but his conviction was set aside in revision by Gujral, J. (as he then was) with the following observations : The case against the petitioner only rests on the testimony of Joginder Singh, Sub -Inspector and Gurbachan Singh, Head Constable. No independent witness was joined by Shri Joginder Singh in the raid. The main attack on the evidenoe of the witness is that in view of their failure to join an independent witness, their evidence be looked with suspicion. To me there seems plausibility in this argument which was raised before the Courts below also. It is the case of the prosecution that Joginder Singh, Sub -Inspector was heading a party which was going for excise checking and patrolling. In that situation Joginder Singh could have visualised that he may be able to find some contraband articles with some of the persons he would be searching. It was therefore, necessary for him to join independent witness in the party so that the recovery could be established beyond doubt. I am of the view that the failure of Joginder Singh to take an independent witness with him would show the anxiety on his part to make the raid a success and that would attach a taint to his evidence. In these circumstances it is not safe to accept the evidence of Sarva shri Joginder Singh and Gurbachan Singh without independent carob oration, which is lacking in this case. With greatest respect to the learned Judge we are unable to subscribe lo and sustain this view which can be supported neither on any provision in the statute nor on judicial authority.