Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A charge was laid against the petitioner, an Exemptee Head Constable (EHC) of grave misconduct while posted at Police Station Murthal of drug dealing. This was on a disclosure statement of one Sonu Mandal r/o Uttar Pradesh in the course of investigation that the petitioner was involved in sale of contraband poppy straw at Satnam Dhaba, Grand Trunk Road, Murthal to truck drivers and other wayside customers. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in FIR No.25 dated 22.01.2009 at Police Station Murthal for offences under S.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Special Judge, Sonepat was constrained after trial to acquit the accused including the petitioner by judgment dated 07.02.2011 by giving the accused the benefit of doubt. The trial Court expressed its anguish on the conduct of the Investigating Officer and SHO Ramphal who derelicted in duty by not deposing to relevant testimony which he ought to have done in the witness box to bring home the charge of which he was part and parcel culminating in presentation of challan before the Special Judge. The Special Judge in his order recorded as follows:-

"There is yet another serious infirmity which has remained unexplained. The investigating officer has stated that when the two samples and the residue parcel were produced in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 23.1.2009 than the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat Shri R.P. Goel, who affixed his own seal on the parcels and initialed them also. However, neither there is any initials were found nor any of his seal on the sample which was received in Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban as is clear from the report Ex. PD, which shows the seal of 'RS'and 'SS'and 'RP' on the sample parcels. Meaning thereby that the sample was not the same which was duly signed and sealed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat also besides the investigating officer Rajender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Banwari Lal and Station House Officer Inspector Ramphal.
54. For the reasons recorded above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the three accused and giving the accused benefit 2013.08.23 10:10 all of them are acquitted of the charges framed against them."

Alongside the criminal trial, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 24.01.2009 on the same charge. The petitioner was placed under suspension and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Sonepat was appointed enquiry officer. The report went against the petitioner. The charge based on the story in the criminal trial was proved by returning a finding that the petitioner had secured acquittal "due to not giving proper evidence by the prosecution witnesses before the Court". Therefore, the pleaded case of the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the reason for bringing home the charge in the domestic enquiry that the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and not having secured honorable acquittal is not entirely true.

I have no reason to hold that the reason assigned by the punishing authority is either improper or irrelevant or not germane to the punishment imposed. The Special Judge, Sonepat has virtually passed strictures against SHO Inspector Ramphal. Therefore, the doubt remains and an overwhelming doubt is sufficient pressure on the mind of a reasonable man to reach the same conclusion as arrived at by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat in his order dated 23.01.2012. The by product of the findings of the Special Judge on dishonest investigation of a serious drug charge inhibit me to interfere in the matter. The petitioner may be innocent of the charge for the rest of the world but not in the world of a disciplined force. The burden of proof of drug dealing by a policeman on abject failure of prosecution to support the prosecution case initiated by it after investigation is light in my view. Trial Courts are not meant to be used for personal ends or bargaining counters by corrupt policemen. The police force should not bring a charge against a policeman and put him to trial only to later make a deal by withholding oral testimony to derail the prosecution case. This Court is conscious that honorable acquittal and acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt have little difference. But in this case this question does not arise because the benefit of doubt which has led to acquittal rests on the slender balance of failure of the Investigation officer and the SHO Ramphal to honestly depose in support of the prosecution case based on the challan presented.