Hansa Singh vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner was convicted u/s 9 of the Opium Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepore and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. Further rigorous imprisonment for six months was also ordered in case of default of payment of fine. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The petitioner has now moved this Court.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 28th September, 1980, Sub Inspector Lakhbir Singh along with two other police officials was going to village Pir Ke Khangarh. When the police party reached near the turning of Village Tibbi Kalan the accused was accosted there. He was apprehended on suspicion. On his search. 10 kgs of opium was recovered from him 10 grammes of opium was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining bulk of opium were separately scaled and taken into possession after preparing usual seizure memos. The sealed parcel of the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner who. opined the same to be opium. To support the prosecution story, only S.I. Lakhbir Singh appeared in the witnessbox. In spite of several opportunities being given to the prosecution, no other prosecution witness was produced. Ultimately, the Court closed the prosecution evidence. When examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosection allegations.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the present case it will not be safe to convict the petitioner on the solitary statement of S.I. Lakhbir Singh. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State argued that there is no provision of law that the conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the solitary statement of a witness as the evidence has to be judged by its quality and not quantity. In support of his contention he has cited Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, Assistant Collector of Customs, AIR 1971 SC 28 wherein it was remarked :

"Mr. Bhattacharya, who followed Mr. Chagla for the appellants, contends that a serious question of law is involved, the question being that if an investigating officer conducts a search his evidence cannot be relied on unless it is corroborated. It is a novel proposition and he has not been able to cite any authority or principle in support of it. It all depends on the facts in each case. At any rate, here we have the corroborative evidence of P.W. 8, who signed the search document and also the entries themselves in the account books and their tallying with the slips."

Of course, there is no dispute about the proposal that the conviction of an accused can be based on the solitary statement of a witness but the question is whether it is safe to base the conviction thereon.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment rendered in Cr. Revision No. 1837/1982 (Wassan Singh v. The State of Punjab), 1985(2) RCR(Crl.) 460 (P&H) : decided on 6th January, 1984 , in which it was remarked :

"The prosecution evidence in this case consists of the solitary statement of Tarsem Singh SubInspector although the police party had gone for the purpose of conducting excise raids but it did not join any person of the public either from Verowal from where it started or from any other village which fell on the way. None from the village of the petitioner was either joined in the raid party. Apart from Tarsem Singh SubInspector, no other official witness was produced by the prosecution although a number of opportunities were given for the purpose. 1 do not think that it would be safe in this situation to base the conviction of the petitioner on the uncorroborated solitary statement of Tarsem Singh SubInspector. Consequently, I give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner............"

The above observations in Wassan Singh''s case (supra) apply to the present case. In the present case, some officials of the police party were cited as witnesses but surprisingly enough none of them was examined in the witnessbox in spite of several opportunities having been given to the prosecution. The accused is entitled to say that by crossexamining the witnesses he could have demonstrated that the prosecution story is not reliable. I am of the opinion that the above argument has force. I may also quote here Harchand Singh v. The State, (197377) Suppl. C.L.R. 77 wherein it was remarked :

"I have no quarrel with inference drawn by the learned courts below regarding the interested nature of Kaka Singh and Joginder Singh PWs, but it is the admitted case of the parties that Sub Inspector Sampuran Singh was accompanied by one Assistant SubInspector and about 56 Constables. In that situation, at least the Assistant SubInspector or one or two Constables should have been produced so that the petitioner would have been in a position to crossexamine them and show that one or the other of the official witnesses was not telling the truth. An official witness can be relied upon but in cases where more than one official witnesses are available and the prosecution examines only one witness then it does not appear safe to rely upon the statement of a single official witness especially when he happens to be the investigating officer himself. In this view of the matter, the petitioner deserves to get the benefit of doubt."

For the foregoing reasons I give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and accept the present revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge framed against him.'' The fine if paid he refunded to him.