Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 464 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-01

V.K.BALI

body2000
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. These three Criminal Revision Petitions bearing No. 945, 946 and 947 of 1987 which have been filed by Sukhdev Singh, have been put up for hearing by the office is one lot but inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of all three cases are different, the revision are proposed to be decided by separate orders. 2. Challenge herein is to an order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, dated March 14, 1986, vide which the petitioner was held guilty for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for two months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentenced came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala on September 17, 1987. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case leading to conviction and sentence of the petitioner are than on July 18, 1984 when S.I. Lashkar Singh alongwith Head Constable Gurnam singh and other police officials was returning to police station after patrolling of village Ganghoar and the police party was one furlong away from bus stand, Ganghoar, the petitioner was seen coming from the side of bus stand. On suspicion he was apprehended. On search of the bag held by the petitioner in his right hand, 6 kgs. of opium was recovered. Out of total quantity of opium that was recovered from the petitioner 10 gms was taken out as sample and the remaining opium was put into separate tin boxes and sealed into parcels with the seal bearing description L.S. The sample, remaining opium Ex. P2 and sample seal Ex. P1 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. The intimation of this incident was sent vide memo Ex. PC, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was registered. 4. In its endeavour to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined two official witnesses, namely, Head Constable Gurnam Singh PW1 and SI Lashkar Singh PW2 who fully supported the prosecution version. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PE and affidavits Ex. PF, PG and PH were tendered into evidence. 5. PC, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was registered. 4. In its endeavour to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined two official witnesses, namely, Head Constable Gurnam Singh PW1 and SI Lashkar Singh PW2 who fully supported the prosecution version. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PE and affidavits Ex. PF, PG and PH were tendered into evidence. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner denied the allegations and further stated that he was taken from his house in the presence of Malkiat Singh and Sarwan Singh and was falsely implicated in this case. He led no evidence in defence. The trial resulted in conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced in the manner fully indicated above. 6. In the grounds of revision it has been pleaded and so argued by the learned counsel that both the Courts below have ignored the defence evidence without giving any sufficient reason and there are many discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It has further been pleaded that the Investigating Officer has failed to join any independent witness and that in itself is enough to reject the prosecution case. It has rather been pleaded that the Courts below have passed order on the basis of suspicion and not based on the evidence that has come on record of the case and further that the Investigating Officer was inimical to the petitioner. 7. I have gone though the record of the case which is available but find no merit in any of the grounds mentioned in the grounds of revision. A firm finding of fact has been recorded that the prosecution evidence, even though of police officials, is consistent and inspires confidence. The mere fact that no independent witness was joined is not enough to reject the prosecution version particularly when there was no prior intimation with the police that particular person was possessing some contraband. The present was a case where the police party was on patrol duty and it was only by chance that they apprehended the petitioner on suspicion. There was no occasion for them to join an independent witness. However, it is settled proposition of law that when recovery is supported by police officials and no independent witness is joined, at the most the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would be examined with more care and caution. There was no occasion for them to join an independent witness. However, it is settled proposition of law that when recovery is supported by police officials and no independent witness is joined, at the most the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would be examined with more care and caution. It is not at all a case where the conviction and sentence has been recorded merely on suspicion and not on the basis of evidence that has come on record. Nothing at all has been brought on record that may suggest any enmity of the police with the petitioner. That apart it is not probable that Investigating Officer would have planted such a huge quantity of opium on the petitioner. Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.