Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 Date of decision : October 20, 2011 Des Raj and another ....Appellants versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Gandhi, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Des Raj and Bakhshish Singh having convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and order dated 20.2.2002 have preferred the instant criminal appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence. Prosecution case in brief is that police party comprising of ASI Bakhshish Singh, HC Amarjit Singh and other police officials was present in the area of village Bhogpur on 4.7.1999 when secret information was received that both the accused Des Raj and Bakhshish Singh were using counterfeit currency notes of Rs 500/- denomination as genuine ones and they were present by the side of liquor vend. FIR was got registered by Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -2- sending ruqa to the Police Station. Police party went towards liquor vend and found both the accused present outside the liquor vend. Prince Raj, a public person, was joined by the police. On search of accused Des Raj, two counterfeit notes of Rs 500/- denomination were recovered from him whereas on search of accused Bakhshish Singh, three counterfeit currency notes of Rs 500/- denomination were recovered from him. The currency notes were sealed in separate envelopes and were seized by the police. Rough site plan of place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Treasurer, Reserve Bank of India after examination of the recovered notes gave report that the notes were counterfeit currency notes. On completion of investigation, police presented report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of both the accused under section 489-C IPC. Charge under section 489-C IPC was framed against both the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. ASI Bakhshish Singh, PW1 and HC Amarjit Singh, PW2 broadly stated about recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of both accused as per prosecution version. ASI Bakhshish Singh also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. S.K. Kochhar, PW3, Retired Treasurer, Reserve Bank of India stated that after examining the notes in question, he gave report that the Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -3- same were counterfeit currency notes. MHC Harbhajan Singh, PW4 and Constable Chaman Lal, PW5 stated that the case property was not tampered with in their custody. PW Prince Raj was given up as having been won over by the accused. The accused in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Accused Des Raj alleged that he belongs to scheduled caste but has married a girl of Lubana community having fallen in love and on account of it, Lubana community was annoyed with him and got him falsely implicated in this case. It was also alleged that previously one Jagtar Singh had also moved application to the police for implicating him in false case of receiving Rs 50,000/- for sending him abroad, but after investigation, it was found to be false. Accused Bakhshish Singh alleged that he has been implicated in this false case being friend of Des Raj accused. No evidence was led by the accused in their defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.2002 convicted both the accused under section 489-C IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs 2000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have preferred the instant criminal appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -4- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Prince Raj PW, witness of the alleged recovery, has not been examined by the prosecution. It was also submitted that according to ASI Bakhshish Singh, the place of occurrence falls on left hand side of the road while going from Jalandhar to Tanda but according to HC Amarjit Singh, PW2, the place of occurrence falls on right hand side of the said road. It was also argued that ASI Bakhshish Singh did not offer his own search before searching the accused. Reference was also made to defence version pleaded by the accused. It was also canvassed that the occurrence took place 12 years ago and therefore, reduction in sentence is warranted. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that ASI Bakhshish Singh, PW1 and HC Amarjit Singh, PW2 had no reason to implicate the accused in false case and their statements are reliable and sufficient to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prayer for reduction in sentence was also opposed. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. ASI Bakhshish Singh, PW1 and HC Amarjit Singh, PW2 have both categorically deposed about recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the appellants. The said currency notes were found to be counterfeit as reported by S.K. Kochhar, PW3. Statements of ASI Bakhshish Singh, PW1 and HC Amarjit Singh, PW2 could not be impeached in their cross- Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -5- examination. They have stood the test of cross-examination. There is no reason to discard their sworn statements. Their statements inspire confidence and are sufficient to prove guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Prince Raj had to be given up as he had been won over by the appellants. Consequently, merely because Prince Raj has not been examined as witness by the prosecution, the accused cannot be acquitted. Statements of ASI Bakhshish Singh, PW1 and HC Amarjit Singh, PW2 are also as much credible as those of independent witnesses because they had no enmity with the accused nor they had any motive or malice against the accused so as to implicate them in a false case or to depose falsely against them. The defence version that accused Des Raj had married a girl of Lubana community and therefore, he alongwith his friend Bakhshish Singh has been falsely implicated at the instance of Lubana community, cannot be accepted because there is not even a shred of material on record in support of this defence version. Suggestion to this effect put to ASI Bakhshish Singh in his cross-examination was denied by him. Even wife of accused Des Raj has not appeared as defence witness to state about the aforesaid defence version nor any other witness was examined to substantiate the defence version. On the other hand, it is a very vague and general allegation that the accused have been falsely implicated at the instance of Lubana community without naming any person and without even naming the village from which the girl hailed. Even otherwise, police would not Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -6- implicate the accused in false case merely at the instance of Lubana community. There is also no material on record to depict that Jagtar Singh had moved any application against accused Des Raj that Des Raj had received Rs 50,000/- from Jagtar Singh for sending him abroad, as stated by Des Raj in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it was suggested to ASI Bakhshish Singh that Jagtar Singh had moved application that Des Raj had received Rs 16,000/- from him for sending him abroad. Thus, defence version in this regard is contradictory. Moreover, no record has been produced in defence evidence to depict that any such application was at all moved to the police by Jagat Singh or Jagtar Singh against accused Des Raj. Moreover, if no case was registered on application allegedly moved by Jagtar Singh against accused Des Raj, it would rather depict that there was no intention of the police to implicate the accused in any false case. Statements of Bakhshish Singh and Amarjit Singh PWs cannot be discarded merely on account of solitary minor contradiction as to whether the place of recovery was on left side or right hand side of the road. Such minor contradiction is likely to occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses particularly with passage of time. Both these witnesses were examined on 6.9.2000 i.e. one year two months after the occurrence. Consequently, aforesaid solitary contradiction is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution version. It was not put to ASI Bakhshish Singh in his cross-examination Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -7- as to whether he had offered his own search before searching the accused or not, although in examination-in-chief also, he did not state about this fact. However, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the counterfeit currency notes were planted on the accused to implicate them in false case without any rhyme or reason. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution evidence is cogent and creditworthy and is, therefore, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Their conviction is well founded. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place 12 years ago. During this long period, the accused have faced the agony of trial including present appeal. Moreover, value of the counterfeit currency notes recovered from the accused is not very high. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof. It is ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The appellants, who are on bail, Criminal Appeal No. 411-SB of 2002 -8- shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 20, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'