HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-Harjinder Singh stands convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having been found in possession of 100 grams of opium. The sentence imposed upon him being the minimum prescribed by law, namely, ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lakh.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on February 17, 1986 at about 1 P.M. Head Constables Om Parkash and Mohinder Singh and Constable Suraj Bhan were standing at a chowk in Faridabad along with a rikshaw-puller Kalu when the appellant Harjinder Singh happened to come there. Seeing the police party, he tried to retrace his steps, but was apprehended and on search was found to be carrying 100 grams of opium wrapped in wax paper, in his right side pocket.

(3.) AS regards the two official witnesses, namely; P W. 2 Head Constable Om Parkash and P.W.3 H. C. Mohinder Singh, it is no doubt well-settled that their testimony is not to the doubted or discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials, but it is an equally well-recognised rule of caution that courts should look for independent corroboration to the testimony of such witnesses in cases like the present. Here P.W.1 Kalu, was no doubt associated, but it is pertinent to note not only the fact that be did not support the prosecution, but also and more important the nature and quality of this witness. In his testimony, he admitted to having been convicted in many cases under the Opium Act and the Excise Act and also that he had been cited as a witness for the prosecution in 60 to 70 such cases. When the investigating officer P.W. 3. H. C. Mohinder Singh came into the witness box, specific cases were suggested to him in cross-examination in which Kalu was said to have been cited as a witness for the prosecution. No straight forward reply was given to this suggestion. All he said was that he did not recollect if he was the investigating officer of any of these cases or that he was a witness therein. He also deposed that he did not know if Kalu bad been cited as a witness in these cases. Further, he could not give a categoric reply to the suggestion that Kalu also been convicted for offences under the Opium and Excise Act. Such being the situation Kalu can, by no means, be said to have been an independent witness rather it is abundantly clear that he was a person wholly under the influence of the police officials.