Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 576 (RAJ)

Puran Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-16

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.04.1995 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar Camp Shri Karanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33/1993, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Karanpur against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 51/1988. By the said judgment the learned trial court convicted the accused petitioner under Section 54 (a), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 07.09.1987 the Excise Inspector of the Karanpur Circle while patrolling with E.P.F. Party in front of 44 GG Moga noticed fire in a Chulha near the canal. On suspicion they stopped and found that a man was pouring water in the utensil kept on the Chulha. On seeing the partolling party, that man ran away, who was identified by Ramnath to be Puran Singh S/o Daman Singh. He was followed but he fled away. On returning back, the partolling party recovered a Bhatti in running condition and also found 150 liters wash in a drum and 10 bottles of illicit liquor. A criminal case bearing No. 37/1987 under Section 54 (a), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act was registered against the petitioner and after usual investigation challan was filed against him before the competent court. 3. The learned trial court framed charge against the petitioner under Section 54 (a), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accusedpetitioner, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, the prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 5 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Shyolal, P.W.2 Kundan Singh, P.W.3 Ramnath, P.W.4 Narayan Singh and P.W.5 Balvinder Singh and produced various exhibits. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which he stated that the statements of the witnesses are false. The accused in his defence examined one witness, namely, D.W.1 Balbeer Singh. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which he stated that the statements of the witnesses are false. The accused in his defence examined one witness, namely, D.W.1 Balbeer Singh. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court held the accused-petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him vide judgment and order dated 25.05.1993 as narrated above. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar Camp Karanpur and the said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.04.1995. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court which was upheld by the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court and the learned appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution because there is no evidence on record as to who identified the present petitioner Puran Singh at the spot because P.W.1 Shyolal deposed in his evidence that after hearing the sounds, a person ran away from the spot and Ramnath identified that person as Puran Singh and P.W.3 Ramnath deposed that he identified Puran Singh while he was running from the scene of offence, but there is no evidence on record that how Ramnath identified Puran Singh because there is nothing on record to show that he was knowing Puran Singh prior to the incident, therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 Shyolal and P.W.3 Ramnath does not inspire faith regarding identification of the present petitioner Puran Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the absence of any such identification, it cannot be said that the recovery of the excise articles and illicit liquor was made from the conscious possession of petitioner Puran Singh. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that P.W.3 Ramnath categorically stated that he saw present petitioner Puran Singh running from the place of the incidence and there is no evidence even in the cross-examination of this witness by which it can be said that the accused-petitioner was not identified at the spot by P.W.3 Ramnath and there are no serious contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 Shyolal and P.W.3 Ramnath. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that P.W.1 Shyolal and P.W.3 Ramnath are the public servants and there is no evidence of any earlier enmity between these witnesses and the petitioner, therefore, the statement of P.W.1 Shyolal and P.W.3 Ramnath cannot be disbelieved. 7. I have considered the rival contentions made by both the parties and perused the statements of the witnesses as well as the judgments of both the courts below. 8. P.W.1 Shyolal clearly stated in his statement that Ramnath identified the person running from the place of the incidence as Puran Singh and P.W.3 Ramnath corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 Shyolal in toto and there are no serious contradictions in the statements of both these witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony and there is no evidence of any enmity between these two witnesses and the accused-petitioner, therefore, on the basis of the statements of these two witnesses, the learned trial court did not err in convicting the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 54 (a), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which was further affirmed by the learned appellate court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is maintained. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the learned appellate court on 20.04.1995 and he remained in the judicial custody upto 06.06.1995, thus, he remained in the judicial custody for about one month and seventeen days and he has already deposited the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- as per the report made on the warrant of the accused petitioner, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the term already served by him. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the court. 11. 500/- as per the report made on the warrant of the accused petitioner, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the term already served by him. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the court. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the offence is of the year 1987, no useful purpose would be served by sending the accused-petitioner behind the bars again after the lapse of about 23 years, therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the term already served by him and as the fine has already been deposited, therefore, the fine as imposed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is also maintained. 12. Resultantly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner, the order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated above.Revision petition partly allowed. *******