Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1994 Date of decision: March 26, 2008 Ex-Havaldar Nachhattar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. P.S.Dogra (Colonel) Recruiting Officer made a complaint to Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar that Ex-Havaldar Nachattar Singh is acting as an agent for enrollment and five persons, namely Ranjit Singh, Kabal Singh, Gurmit Singh, Ajit Singh and Mukhtar Singh were enrolled by Subedar S.L. Majothra. It was further stated that amount of Rs.4739/- was recovered from Ex. Havaldar Nachattar Singh. On his complaint, FIR was recorded. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and on 31.5.1991, a charge was framed against the petitioner that in the months of February/ March, 1989 he dishonestly induced Mukhtiar Singh, Ajit Singh, Gurmit Singh, Kabul Singh, Ranjit Singh, Dilbagh Singh to deliver Rs.7300/- from Mukhtiar Singh, Rs.3000/- from Ajit Singh, Rs.8000/- from Gurmit Singh, Rs.8000/- from Kabul Singh Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1994 2 and Rs.7300/- from Ranjit Singh for obtaining job in Indian Army. Therefore, he committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC. Ajit Singh appeared as PW-1. He had not supported the prosecution and stated that Nachhattar Singh had not taken any money from him. PW-2 SI Jaswant Singh had investigated the case. PW-3 Gurmit Singh stated that he had paid Rs.8000/- to the petitioner. But in cross- examination, he stated that the accused standing in the dock was not known to him and he does not recognize him. PW-4 Ranjit Singh was declared as hostile and he stated that he never gave any money to the petitioner and accused is also known to him. Harpal Singh ASI appeared as PW-5. He stated that on the basis of written complaint (Ex.PA), he has recorded the FIR (Ex.PW5/A) and the case was also investigated by him. PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh stated that he was desirous of recruitment in Army and he had given the amount to Subedar Sham Lal Manjothra and the present petitioner is not known to him and he has also not given any money to him. PW-7 HC Mehal Singh witnessed the recovery effected at the instance of the petitioner. PW-8 Kabul Singh stated that he has paid Rs.8000/- to Sham Lal Manjothra and the amount was given by him through Nachhattar Singh. Except Kabul Singh, all those persons who had given money, have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have stated that neither they knew Nachhattar Singh nor any money was given by them to Nachhattar Singh. Since the four persons namely, Ajit Singh, Gurmit Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Ranjit Singh had absolved the petitioner, prosecution had a sole testimony of PW-8 Kabul Singh. The learned trial court ignored the testimony of PW-1 Ajit Singh, PW-3 Gurmit Singh, PW-4 Ranjit Singh and PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, and relied only on the testimony of PW-8 Kabul Singh to convict the petitioner. This approach of the trial court cannot be accepted. Out of five persons, four have absolved the petitioner. On the Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1994 3 solitary testimony of PW-8 Kabul Singh, petitioner cannot be convicted when prosecution evidence is weighed and appreciated. There are many attending circumstances to infer innocence of petitioner. S.L.Manjothra was not put to trial as he was declared proclaimed offender. He was serving Army-man, not declared deserter. At least, it was required by the trial court to seek corroboration. Since there is no corroboration on the record, petitioner cannot be held guilty. The fact that at the time of arrest Rs.4739/- were recovered, cannot be treated as corroboration. The learned appellate court below, even though knew the fact that four persons have not supported the prosecution, also went along with the trial court and relied upon the testimony of PW-8 Kabul Singh. True it may be that the courts have always insisted upon the quality and not quantity of evidence, but where four persons have chosen not to go with this prosecution, on the testimony of solitary witness (PW-8 Kabul Singh), conviction of the petitioner cannot be maintained and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the petitioner. His revision petition is accepted. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 26, 2008. rps