Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1005 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Chhajju Ram

2003-07-23

JASBIR SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - Appellant-State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12.2.1990, vide which respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2. In brief, it was case of the prosecution that the respondent was working as a Revenue Patwari in the area of village Kalichpur. Swinder Singh (PW4) had purchased some land and he had handed over the sale deed to him for entering of mutation in his name. It was further alleged that he had given Rs. 200/- to the respondent for that purpose but still, Rs. 200/- more were demanded by the respondent, which Swinder Singh was not ready to pay. Swinder Singh was not having money with him, he promised to pay the amount, as demanded by the respondent, on 2.7.1985. 3. The complainant informed the Vigilance Inspector. A trap was laid as per rules. Two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were treated with phenolphathalein powder and then handed over to Swinder Singh with a direction that he should hand over the tainted money to the respondent, on demand, Amrik Singh (PW5) was deputed as shadow witness to hear the conversation between the respondent and the complainant-Swinder Singh and to give a signal to the raiding party. As per plan, money was handed over to the respondent and he was arrested immediately by the raiding party. He was asked to wash his hands in a solution of water and sodium carbonate and on doing so, colour of the solution turned pink. After completing necessary formalities, final report was prepared and submitted before the competent court for trial. Both the parties then led evidence and the trial court on appraisal of evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges framed against the respondent/accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly, respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him, vide judgment dated 12.2.1990. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Gurinder Singh Bhandari, DAG Punjab, appearing for the appellant- State, by referring to the evidence on record, has vehemently contended that the guilt of the respondent/accused was proved on record. There existed ample evidence against the respondent/accused in the statements of Swinder Singh, complainant and Amrik Singh, shadow witness and the police officials. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Gurinder Singh Bhandari, DAG Punjab, appearing for the appellant- State, by referring to the evidence on record, has vehemently contended that the guilt of the respondent/accused was proved on record. There existed ample evidence against the respondent/accused in the statements of Swinder Singh, complainant and Amrik Singh, shadow witness and the police officials. He further stated that non-joining of an independent witness, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment under challenge be set aside. 5. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by counsel appearing of the respondent/accused. He has stated that it had come on record that there existed enmity between the complainant and the respondent. At an earlier point of time, complainant had approached the respondent to enter khasra girdawari, in his favour, of the land belonging to a minor, which was refused and because of that the complainant was nursing a grouse against him. He hatched a conspiracy to trap him in this false case. Counsel has further stated that there existed no independent corroboration to the testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness. He has further submitted that both these witnesses were discrepant and accordingly their evidence was rightly ignored by the trial court. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent has a substance. It had come on record that there was some dispute between the complainant Swinder Singh and the respondent, regarding non-entering of khasra girdawari in favour of the complainant by the respondent. It had also come on record that there was also a dispute between the complainant and the respondent regarding a transaction in which a buffalo was given by the respondent to the complainant. Shri Bhandari had failed to show that the finding to that effect, by the trial court, was not justified and correct. 7. It had also come on record that there was also a dispute between the complainant and the respondent regarding a transaction in which a buffalo was given by the respondent to the complainant. Shri Bhandari had failed to show that the finding to that effect, by the trial court, was not justified and correct. 7. No doubt, without even independent corroboration, testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness can be relied upon, however, once it is apparent on record that there was enmity existing between complainant and the respondent, this court feels that independent corroboration was necessary for convicting the respondent, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Trial court had also opined that despite availability of many witnesses in the shop from where respondent was alleged to have been arrested, none of them was joined during investigation. Trial Court below had found it, as a matter of fact, that the prosecution had failed to prove on record that the sale deed in question was ever handed over by the complainant to the respondent. Shri Bhandari has failed to indicate anything on record, which may indicate to the contrary. 8. Further, it is apparent from the statements of Swinder Singh and Amrik Singh that they had tried to improve their statements, which they had earlier made at the time of investigation. Under these circumstances, trial court had found both the witnesses untrustworthy. 9. This Court feels that the opinion arrived at by the trial court is perfectly justified. Mr. Bhandari has failed to indicate any legal infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.