Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 94 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-01-21

R.C.KATHURIA

body2003
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. - Jagtar Singh, petitioner-accused has faced trial in respect of offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Indian Penal Code) and Section 9 of the Opium Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) alongwith Mohinder Singh, accused, who was charged under Section 379 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and was further convicted under Section 9 of the Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Mohinder Singh has not chosen to assail his conviction in the present petition. Jagtar Singh had filed Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 13.10.1988 against the order of sentence passed against him which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur as per order dated 3.4.1989 modifying sentence awarded from rigorous imprisonment of three years to rigorous imprisonment for two years while maintaining the sentence of fine. Hence the present revision petition. 2. Put shortly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.8.1984. Surjit Singh in order to see the annual fair being held in the village had gone on the motor cycle belonging to his brother Ram Krishan bearing registration No. PBO 4081. He had parked the motor cycle near the shop and the documents were left in the cabin of the motor cycle. While he was watching the Kabaddi match, he saw Mohinder Singh accused taking his motor cycle and Hardip Singh sitting on the pillion rider seat. As both of them were earlier known to him he assumed that they were taking a round on his motor cycle and for that reason, he did not check Mohinder Singh. After the match was over, Surjit Singh looked for his motor cycle and Mohinder Singh but found no trace of them. Thereafter he searched for Mohinder Singh and motor cycle in the nearby villages and finding no clue about their whereabouts, he lodged the report Ex. PM with Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdip Singh who met him on the way while he was proceeding towards the police station. Thereafter he searched for Mohinder Singh and motor cycle in the nearby villages and finding no clue about their whereabouts, he lodged the report Ex. PM with Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdip Singh who met him on the way while he was proceeding towards the police station. Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh made endorsement Ex.PM/2 and sent the same to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PM/3 was recorded. Investigation of the case was taken up by Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdip Singh. On 2.11.1984 at about 4.00 P.M., Assistant Sub Inspectors Ajit Singh and Gurdip Singh in the company of other police officials were present at the turning of Nandachaur in the area of village Chakkoawl in connection with patrol duty. They noticed accused Jagtar Singh coming on the motor cycle from the side of village Sham Chaurasi. He was stopped by them. Accused Jagtar Singh was carrying a gunny bag on the seat of the motor cycle which was found to contain 30 kgs of opium. 10 grams of opium was separated as simple by Assistant Sub Inspector Ajit Singh in a small tin box and thereafter sample and the residue opium were sealed in parcels Ex.P-2 and P-3 respectively and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PA prepared by the Investigating Officer. Accused failed to produce any permit for carrying the opium in his possession. Ruqa Ex. PC was transmitted to the police station with regard to the recovery of opium on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded in the police station. During the course of investigation, it was verified that motor cycle in question was the same regarding which FIR No. 192 dated 29.4.1984 of theft had already been registered against Jagtar Singh. The motor cycle was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. After receipt of the Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PE and on completion of necessary investigation, petitioner-accused Jagtar Singh alongwith Mohinder Singh was challaned. On these allegations, charges were framed under Section 379 Indian Penal Code against Mohinder Singh - accused and under Section 411 Indian Penal Code against Jagtar Singh. Separate charge under Section 9 of the Act was framed against Jagtar Singh, petitioner-accused. On these allegations, charges were framed under Section 379 Indian Penal Code against Mohinder Singh - accused and under Section 411 Indian Penal Code against Jagtar Singh. Separate charge under Section 9 of the Act was framed against Jagtar Singh, petitioner-accused. As the recovery of opium was also made from the possession of Jagtar Singh-accused at the time when motor cycle in question was recovered from him, both these cases were ordered to be consolidated by the trial Magistrate in terms of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code). 3. To link up the accused with the crime, prosecution solicited the help of Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdip Singh, PW-1, Assistant Sub Inspector Ajit Singh, PW-2 and Surjit Singh. In addition, report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PE and affidavits Ex. PF and PG were produced on record. When examined under Section 313 of the Code, accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. Jagtar Singh took up the stand that he was arrested by the police on 1.11.1984 and a telegram to this effect was committed by his wife to the higher authorities. He produced on record copy of telegram Ex. D1 and judgments Ex. DB, DD in which he and his wife had faced prosecution, in order to establish his plea of enmity with the police. On appraisal of the evidence led on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur convicted and sentenced Mohinder Singh and Jagtar Singh as noticed above vide order dated 8.10.1988. Against the sentence awarded, only Jagtar Singh filed the appeal which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 3.4.1989. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused has assailed the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspectors Ajit Singh and Gurdip Singh on the ground that the recovery of the motor cycle from the petitioner-accused made on 2.11.1984 as stated by them deserves to be rejected primarily on the ground that Surjit Singh, who is the author of the report in his deposition had stated that after his motor cycle was stolen on 23.8.1984, he had seen the same motor cycle eight days thereafter in the police station and then the said motor cycle was taken on sapurdari within 3/4 days thereafter. Thus, the deposition of Surjit Singh, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, has nullified the genuineness of the recovery allegedly made on 2.11.1984 from the from the possession of the accused. While advancing this criticism, the actual position on record has not been taken into account. Ram Krishan who is brother of Surjit Singh had taken the motor cycle on sapurdari from the Court on 10.11.1984. As stated by Assistant Sub Inspectors Gurdip Singh and Ajit Singh, accused was apprehended on 2.11.1984 and the motor cycle in question was taken into possession by them vide seizure memo Ex. OA. Admittedly, Surjit Singh was not present at the time of recovery of the motor cycle as well as 30 kg of opium which the accused was carrying in a gunny bag on the seat of the motor cycle. In the face of statement of Assistant Sub Inspectors Gurdip Singh and Ajit Singh, recovery made cannot be faulted simply because Surjit Singh had chosen to testify having noticed the motor cycle lying in the police station within eight days of the commission of theft of the motor cycle. There can be an honest mistake on the part of Surjit Singh in making out the number of days when he had noticed the motor cycle lying in the police station. It is totally inconceivable that such a huge recovery would have been foisted upon the accused by these witnesses. They have made the recovery from the motor cycle carried by the accused while they were present on the turning of Nandachaur in the area of village Chakkowal in connection with patrol duty. They had no prior information that accused would be coming at that place of recovery. Thus simply because Assistant Sub Inspectors, Gurdip Singh and Ajit Singh are police officials per se is no ground to reject their version with regard to the recovery made from the possession of the petitioner-accused and both the courts below have rightly rejected the stand taken by the petitioner in this regard. 5. Thus simply because Assistant Sub Inspectors, Gurdip Singh and Ajit Singh are police officials per se is no ground to reject their version with regard to the recovery made from the possession of the petitioner-accused and both the courts below have rightly rejected the stand taken by the petitioner in this regard. 5. Another contention made by the counsel for the petitioner-accused is that the police had previous enmity with the accused and his family members and the alleged recovery is rendered doubtful because on 1.11.1984 a day prior to the date of recovery, wife of the petitioner had sent a telegram addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur intimating him about the arrest of her husband made by CIA Staff and in support of the stand taken, reliance was placed on the telegram Ex.D1, besides judgments Ex.DB to Ex.DD. The copy of the telegram Ex. D1 had been placed on record which indicates that it was sent through post office on 1.11.1984 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. The authenticity of the telegram was not accepted by the courts below for three reasons. Firstly that wife of the petitioner-accused had not appeared into the witness box to prove that telegram was actually sent on 1.11.1984. Secondly, that no record of the post office concerned was summoned to prove factually that it was sent by the said post office and when it was delivered to the addressee. Thirdly that the copy of the telegram had been prepared bearing the seal of the office on 9.11.1984 while the date of despatch written in hand is 1.11.1984 and it was the duty of the petitioner to have proved as to who was the author of handwritten date mentioned in the telegram. The reasons stated in the orders cannot be termed as unjustified reasons for not accepting the version of the accused in this regard. Therefore, as the authenticity of the telegram Ex.D1 had not been established, it cannot be inferred as sought to be done from the side of the petitioner that accused was already in custody with the police on 1.11.1984 and recovery of motor cycle and opium had been implanted. Adverting to the other documents Ex. DB to Ex.DD placed on record, Ex.DB is the copy of judgment dated 25.4.1986 wherein the petitioner was acquitted of charge under Section 9 of the Act, Ex. Adverting to the other documents Ex. DB to Ex.DD placed on record, Ex.DB is the copy of judgment dated 25.4.1986 wherein the petitioner was acquitted of charge under Section 9 of the Act, Ex. DC is the copy of judgment dated 3.3.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur which shows that accused had faced the prosecution under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but was acquitted. Ex.DD is copy of judgment dated 26.9.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasua wherein Surinder Kaur wife of the petitioner-accused had faced the prosecution in respect of offences under Sections 41/420 and 468 Indian Penal Code alongwith her husband, petitioner-accused. of this case also Surinder Kaur, accused was acquitted. While Jagtar Singh and another accused were discharged at the initial stage. These judgments do indicate that accused and his wife had been facing criminal prosecution earlier to the registration of the present case. With that background, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the evidence led by the prosecution with extra care and caution in order to find out that statements of the witnesses examined inspire confidence and are worthy of reliance. In the present case, nothing could be brought on record in the cross examination of these witnesses which could in any manner falsify the version of recovery of motor cycle and opium, rendered by these witnesses. Therefore, the plea of previous enmity of the police as such taken by the petitioner-accused has no bearing so far recovery in this case is concerned. 6. Lastly, it was submitted that petitioner-accused had to face prosecution for a period of more than 16 years and sentence awarded to him should be reduced to already undergone by him. It was pointed out by him that petitioner-accused had remained in custody for a period of six months and 23 days. The stand taken from the side of the petitioner-accused had been strenuously opposed by the State counsel because of the heavy recovery of opium made from the possession of the accused on the stolen motor cycle for which he was rightly convicted under Section 41 Indian Penal Code. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner-accused has been facing prosecution for the period stated above. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner-accused has been facing prosecution for the period stated above. The pendency of the criminal appeal for over a period of time cannot be treated as a special reason for reduction of sentence because prolonged litigation in this country is admittedly a generality rather than an exception. The circumstances of the case do not warrant interference in the sentence awarded by the courts below. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is consequently dismissed. Revision dismissed.