Harjinder Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The appellantHarjinder Singh stands convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having been found in possession of 100 grams of opium. The sentence imposed upon him being the minimum prescribed by law, namely, ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lakh.

According to the prosecution, on February 17, 1986 at about 1 P.M. Head Constables Om Parkash and Mohinder Singh and Constable Suraj Bhan were standing at a chowk in Faridabad along with a rikshawpuller Kalu when the appellant Harjinder Singh happened to come there. Seeing the police party, he tried to retrace his steps, but was apprehended and on search was found to be carrying 100 grams of opium wrapped in wax paper, in his right side pocket.

The case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of P.W.2 Head Constable Om Parkash and P.W.3 Head Constable Mohinder Singh. The third witness examined was P.W.1 Kalu, who did not, however, support the prosecution and was consequently declared hostile.

As regards the two official witnesses, namely; P W. 2 Head Constable Om Parkash and P.W.3 H. C. Mohinder Singh, it is no doubt wellsettled that their testimony is not to the doubted or discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials, but it is an equally wellrecognised rule of caution that courts should look for independent corroboration to the testimony of such witnesses in cases like the present. Here P.W.1 Kalu, was no doubt associated, but it is pertinent to note not only the fact that be did not support the prosecution, but also and more important the nature and quality of this witness. In his testimony, he admitted to having been convicted in many cases under the Opium Act and the Excise Act and also that he had been cited as a witness for the prosecution in 60 to 70 such cases. When the investigating officer P.W. 3. H. C. Mohinder Singh came into the witness box, specific cases were suggested to him in crossexamination in which Kalu was said to have been cited as a witness for the prosecution. No straight forward reply was given to this suggestion. All he said was that he did not recollect if he was the investigating officer of any of these cases or that he was a witness therein. He also deposed that he did not know if Kalu bad been cited as a witness in these cases. Further, he could not give a categoric reply to the suggestion that Kalu also been convicted for offences under the Opium and Excise Act. Such being the situation Kalu can, by no means, be said to have been an independent witness rather it is abundantly clear that he was a person wholly under the influence of the police officials.

Another relevant aspect of the matter here is the stringent minimum punishment prescribed for such offences. The severity of it clearly renders it incumbent upon the prosecution to ensure that no element of doubt creeps into the prosecution case by the witnesses associated being of the nature and quality as P.W.1 Kalu here.

Not without significance is also the small quantity of opium said to have been recovered from the appellant. What is more, there are also some discrepancies which appear in the testimony of P.W.2 Head Constable Om Parkash and P.W.3 Head Constable Mohinder Singh. For example, according to Head Constable Om Parkash the police party bad all left together from the police station, whereas Head Constable Mohinder Singh deposed that they had met at the crossing.

Next, Head Constable Om Parkash bad stated that they had completed the formalities at the spot by sitting on a stool, whereas Head Constable Mohinder Singh deposed that they did so while sitting on a bench at a cycle shop.

Finally, the explanation put forth by the appellant in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the effect that his cycle parked outside the shop had been deflated by a constable on account of improper parking, had led to an exchange of hot words between him and the constable. Who had as a consequence, taken him to the police station and got him falsely implicated in the present case, cannot be dismissed as wholly implausible.

In these circumstances, it would clearly be unsafe to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant which are accordingly hereby set aside and the appeal is thus accepted. The petitioner, who is in custody is ordered to be released forthwith and the fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded to him.