STATE OF H.P. Vs. YASH RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, dated 8.1.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to State of H.P.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.7.1999, at about 6.25 P.M., Investigating Officer PW -3 H.C. Bahadur Singh alongwith other police officials, was present at Paonta Sahib Barrier, he stopped a Fiat Car No. DHC -1352, which came from Paonta Sahib and its documents were checked. From the car 120 bottles of English wine and other bottles were recovered. The articles were taken in possession and after investigation and on receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was filed as against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court, as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that statement of PW -3 Investigating Officer himself has stated that when he checked the car, driver had run away and there was no driver in the car. It also appears from the evidence that since name of the driver was mentioned in the driving licence, he was arrested subsequently and the challan was filed as against him. There is nothing in the statement of the Investigating Officer that he identified the driver or the respondent, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. His statement does not find corroboration from PW -1 Jai Ram, peon in E.T.O. office, who was also present at the spot. He has stated that the accused had run away from the spot and he cannot say if the respondent present in the Court was the same person. He was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross -examined by the learned A.P.P. for the State. The other witness present with the Investigating Officer, namely, PW -5 H.C. Lal Singh has been examined, though, he has stated that the accused is the same person, but he also admitted that the accused had run away from the spot. There is nothing in his statement how he identified the accused at that time. He has also stated that Jai Ram had not seen the driver of the car running away from the spot. He also stated that he had not seen the driver himself running away from the spot. Therefore, identity of the accused was not established that he was the person driving the car at the relevant time from whose possession the bottles of English wine were recovered in large quantity. Keeping in view the above discussion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court.