Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh Alias Kaka And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2011
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 14.09.2011
Prem Singh alias Kaka and others
....Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present:- Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)
Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 07.03.2003 passed by the Special Court, Mansa, convicting Prem Singh @ Kaka, Subash and Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina accused- appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of ` 1,00,000/- each.
Factual matrix of the case is that on 16.09.1996 at 3.15 P.M., Manohar Singh, Sub Inspector along with ASI Sukhdev Singh and other police officials was present on the main Mansa- Sirsa road and had placed a barricade there for checking of the vehicles. In the meantime, accused Sukhchain Singh, while Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 2 driving a Maruti van bearing registration No. PB-10-H-0786 arrived there. SI Manohar Singh, on suspicion, signalled him to stop the vehicle and apprehended both the accused, whereas the third accused namely Sukhchain Singh, who was identified by C-I Jasbir Singh, managed to escape. The Investigating Officer gave them option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, whereupon they opted to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer. In the meantime, Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, resident of village Khiali Chehlan Wala arrived there, who was associated and sometime, thereafter, Iqbal Singh, DSP also arrived there. Consequently, on search of Maruti van in the presence of Iqbal Singh, DSP, 7 bags containing poppy husk were recovered. From each of the bag, 100 grams of poppy husk was separated as sample. Remaining poppy husk, on weighment, came to be 35 Kgs in each bag. The samples and the bags were converted into separate parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'M.S'. Seal, after use, was handed over to aforesaid Sukhdev Singh. On further search of Maruti van, one service book in the name of Jiwan Lal son of Des Raj, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana, two number plates bearing No. HR-10-5135, one punctured stepeny and one jack were recovered. The Investigating Officer took the said Maruti van as well as the entire case property into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD. The accused persons were also arrested. On return to the police station, the Investigating Officer produced the case property as well as the accused before the Station House Officer, who after verifying the same, deposited it in the police Malkhana. The accused were also put in police lock-up. Thereafter on Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 3 17.09.1996, the case property and the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mansa. Accused Sukhchain Singh was arrested on 18.09.1996. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and on completion of investigation, charge report was presented in the Court.
On commitment, the accused persons were charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined HC Bharpur Singh (PW-1), Constable Gurnam Singh (PW-2), ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW-3), Sampuran Singh (PW-4), SI Manohar Singh (PW-5), Iqbal Singh, DSP (PW-6) and HC Jasbir Singh (PW-7).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Sukhdev Singh (DW-1), Dr. Atul Kumar Singla (DW-2) and Gurdev Kaur (DW-3).
The trial resulted into conviction.
Arguments heard. Records perused.
Learned counsel for the accused, while assailing the judgment of conviction, has raised multi fold contentions including that Sukhdev Singh, the only independent witness having been joined by the police, has not been examined by the prosecution in order to lend support to the prosecution case. The counsel also doubts about the presence of Sukhdev Singh at the time of recovery and he urges that his signatures on the recovery memo appears to be forged one, as opined by Dr. Atul Kumar Singla , Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 4 Handwriting and Fingerprints expert, Patiala (DW-2).
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, the same are found to be devoid of any merit. Here the independent witness was joined, but was given up as won over. In cases of chance recovery when the police party is on routine checking, the independent witnesses were not essentially to be associated. In any case, the Investigating Officer in his best efforts, had joined Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, but as usual, he changed place and did not like to serve the cause of the State, therefore, the prosecution in its wisdom, had given him up as won over. However, prosecution has examined official witnesses, i.e. SI Manohar Singh (PW-5), DSP Iqbal Singh (PW-6) and HC Jasbir Singh (PW-7), who have duly and consistently supported the prosecution case. No such contradiction or discrepancy with regard to date, time, place and the manner in which recovery was effected, has been pointed out. These witnesses had no motive or enmity with the accused for implicating them falsely, in this case of heavy recovery. Minor discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses are bound to occur with the passage of time. The discrepancy to the effect that SI Manohar Singh (PW-5) disclosed that writing work was done by him, but to the contrary HC Bharpur Singh (PW-1) has stated that writing work was done by him, hardly affects the substratum of the case.
Thus, in view of the consistent testimonies of the official witnesses, the non-examination of independent witness is not fatal. Every police official/officer cannot be a bad witness and all police personnel cannot be said to be unreliable witnesses. Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 5 They have no motive to falsely implicate the persons.
Now coming to other aspect regarding signatures of Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, on the recovery memo. Though, Dr. Atul Kumar Singla (DW-2) has stated that the signatures given by Sukhdev Singh in the Court do not tally with the signatures on the recovery memo, but in the given circumstances of the case when Sukhdev Singh was already declared as won over, no expectation could be made from him to make the signatures in the usual course. Dr. Atul Kumar Singla did not call for any standard handwriting or signatures of Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, as previously made by him in the account books, resolution book maintained by the Panchayat or any other such record. Sukhdev Singh having been determined to help the accused, in all human probabilities, was supposed to change/disguise his signatures. So, the signatures of Sukhdev Singh taken on 12.12.2002 in the Court on his having been identified by learned defence counsel, can be said to be not the standard signatures, sufficient for comparison. The standard signatures could be said to be those, which have been proved from the old admitted documents. But, no such documents have been summoned for comparison of signatures of Sukhdev Singh with the disputed signatures. It is also well settled by now, as admitted by Dr. Atul Kumar Singla (DW-2) that the science of handwriting and signature comparison is not a perfect science. Variations are bound to occur with the passage of time; the manner and posture of signing; state of mind and many other reasons. In this case, the questioned signatures are dated 16.09.1996, whereas the signatures of Sukhdev Singh were taken on 12.12.2002 in the Court. Sukhdev Singh, while Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 6 supporting the accused, was over cautious to disguise his original signatures. Thus, no benefit could be extended to the accused on the basis of the report Ex.DW2/1.
No merit could be seen in the other contention of learned counsel that the case suffers for non-compliance of the provisions under Section 42 of the Act because it is not a case based on secret information. The police was on routine checking when the accused were apprehended. Therefore, provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not applicable.
The argument that option given to the accused is defective, also does not find favour with them. The Investigating Officer in case of search of a vehicle, was not supposed to make compliance of Section 50 of the Act. In any case, the Investigating Officer having exercised extra precaution, had recorded the statements of the accused and as per their wish, had called Mr. Iqbal Singh, DSP, in whose presence the search was conducted and the recovery was effected. No time was wasted in sending the ruqa to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR was recorded. In the said ruqa, the Investigating Officer had specifically recorded that the same was sent for registration of the case; the special reports were sent and police control room was also informed. The FIR further reveals that after its registration, it was sent to the higher authorities for information. Not only this, immediately after the occurrence, the case property along with the accused was produced before the Magistrate and special report, Ex.PL, was sent to the higher authorities. The arrest of accused Sukhchain Singh is also proved by SI Manohar Singh vide memo Ex.PQ. HC Jasbir Singh (PW-7) has categorically stated that he Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 7 had identified accused Sukhchain Singh, who was driving the Maruti van and had run away on seeing the police party. He has duly proved that he knew accused Sukhchain Singh since earlier. He has also identified all the accused in the Court. It was not night time, therefore, there was no reason for his identification by HC Jasbir Singh.
Further, the prosecution story finds corroboration from the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PR. The samples as taken into possession by SI Manohar Singh, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory immediately on 18.09.1996 along with the sample seal chit, kept separately and on examination, the samples, so sent, were found to be that of poppy husk. The witnesses have also consistently stated that six bags of poppy husk were lying in the dickey and one bag was lying between the seats. Therefore, all the three accused had the knowledge and due control of the bags. It is not a case where the bags were lying concealed somewhere, about which, the accused could not have the knowledge. The accused have also not explained as to how and for what motive, they were sitting in the Maruti van. Thus, their conscience possession stands proved.
This Court is also not convinced with the contention that link evidence is missing in the case. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PR, which was made on the basis of the samples so sent to him on 18.09.1996, reveals that the sample seal impressions affixed on the sample seal chit, tallied with the seals affixed on the samples and were found intact. Though, no plea with regard to animosity against the witnesses to the recovery has been taken at the time when the accused were examined Crl. Appeal No. 844-SB of 2003 8 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, a witness Gurdev Kaur (DW-
3) was examined in order to show that the accused had enmity with them on account of the fact that some of the police officials had engraved the words "Jeb Katri" on her forehead, for which a writ petition was filed in the High Court and a case was registered against those police officials under the orders of the High Court with regard to that illegal act done by the police officials. As such, they being related to Gurdev Kaur, were involved in this case.
Having considered this contention, the same is devoid of any merit. No evidence has been led, as to if the witnesses of the present case were the accused in that case. No relationship of the present witnesses has been proved with the accused of the earlier case, registered against some police officials. The relationship of Prem Singh with Gurdev Kaur has also not been proved. It has come in evidence that Sukhchain Singh has been working in the house of Gurdev Kaur (DW-3), which appears to be ground for Gurdev Kaur to extend some favour to Sukhchain Singh. No evidence has been led to prove the relationship of Gurdev Kaur with Subash. Thus, the testimony of Gurdev Kaur (DW-3) is not helpful to the accused.
No other argument has been advanced.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.N.JINDAL)
September 14, 2011 JUDGE
ajp