Chand Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J. (Oral)

The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 165A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Special Judge, Faridkot on 18th May, 1983. He has preferred his appeal aging his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that a case under Section 43/506, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the appellant SC 56 therein that the accused persons had burn bundles of wheat sieves and certain other articles belonging to Gurdev Singh, complainant (D.W 1) The accused of that case made an application to the Dy. S.P. Muktsar for an enquiry by him as they were innocent.

It is alleged that on 18th July, 1983 Inspector Jaswant Singh, P.W. was present in his office at Giddarbaha. The appellant approached him and offered him Rs. 5,000 as a reward for his services. Inspector Jaswant Singh rang a bell, at which A.S.I. Jaspal singh and Head Constable Ranjit Singh came in his room A.S.I. Jaspal Singh took into possession the currency notes Exhibits P.1 to P.50 vide Memo Exhibit PB and also arrested the appellant (accused) and a case was registered at Police Station Giddarbaha vide F.I.R. Exhibit PA.

At the trial, the appellant denied the prosecution allegation and his version is as follows:

"Inspector Jaswant Singh had been calling me and coaccused and the complainant party and has suggested that the matter may be compromised. He had asked me that the accused party should bring Rs. 5,000 for being paid to the complainant party. I brought the sum of Rs. 5,000 for being paid to Gurdev Singh, complainantparty. They were not meant for bribe. That case has since been compromised and we have been acquitted."

He also produced in his defence Gurdev Singh D.W.1 complainant in the earlier case, at whose statement the F.I.R. Exhibit PD in the case under section 435 and 506 I.P.C. was registered.

Inspector Jaswant Singh P.W.1 and A.S.I. Jaspal Singh P.W.2, have supported the prosecution version as given in the earlier party of the judgment. Shir Hans Raj, Dy. S.P. Muktsar, P.W.3, partly investigated the case and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Exhibit P.E. He also had recorded the statement of the witnesses. The evidence of Inspector Jaswant Singh and A.S.I. Jaspal Singh does not inspire confidence. It is on record that Inspector Jaswant Singh was due for promotion as a Dy. S.P. and he was in fact promoted in March, 1984. In order to show his honesty and integrity he seems to have planted this case upon the appellant. According to the defence version. Gurdev Singh, D.W.1, who was the complainant in the case under Sections 435/506, IPC in which the appellant was also arrayed as one of the accused Inspector Jaswant Singh, had called the parties for a compromise and told them that he would arrange for compensation for the loss of the wheat boundless suffered by the complainantparty. Gurdev Singh D.W. further started that Inspector Jaswant Singh had told them that Chand Singh, appellant had brought Rs. 5,000 on that day for being paid to them as compensation and enquired what other amount was required. Both the parties were present when the money was offered to Inspector Jaswant Singh not as a bride but as a compensation to be given to the complainant party and the whole occurrence took place in their presence. Subsequently, it was learnt by them that a case under Section 165A, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the appellant. In fact, the complainant party and the appellant has compromised in that case and the appellant and the other coaccused were acquitted in the case registered against them under Sections 435 and 506 I.P.C. The learned Special Judge rejected the defence version solely on the ground that the defence plea was not suggested to Inspector Jaswant Singh at the time of the crossexamination and on that ground he observed that it was after thought. I have perused the statement of Inspector Jaswant Singh P.W.1, that the money was brought only for giving compensation to the complainantparty on that date. Thus, this observation of the trial Court is not warranted on that evidence on record. According to D.W.2 Gurnam Singh, Head Constable, Inspector Jaswant Singh, P.W.1, was promoted as Dy. S.P. by order dated 18th March, 1983. Thus, in my view, the defence version seems to be more probable. Moreover, Inspector Jaswant Singh P.W.1, himself held investigation in the present case. Under the law he being a complainant could not investigate the matter. Reference may be made to Bhagwant Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 985. The Dy. S.P.Hans Raj, P.W.3, had only prepared the rough site plan. Th whole investigation was conducted by the complainant himself. The seizure memos and the recovery memos were also prepared by him. He also arrested the appellant and obtained his police remand.

In this situation, I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Inspector Jaswant Singh and it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the statement of Inspector Jaswant Singh. He is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The sum of Rs. 5000 is directed to be returned to the appellant Chand Singh within a month from today.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.