Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 Date of decision : 22.8.2008 Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. B.S.Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. The Amicus Curiae came to be appointed on 5.8.2008 in this appeal as none entered appearance on behalf of the appellant on that date. This Court, with a view to dispose of this custody case which is pertaining to year 2004, appointed Amicus Curiae. The original counsel of the appellant entered appearance only thereafter. The appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Judge for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. In the course of investigation of case FIR No. 37 dated 29.4.2001 under Section 307, read with Section 25 of the Arms Act Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -2- **** and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, registered at Police Station city, Gurdaspur, a police party headed by ASI Mohan Singh was present at T-point of Kalanaur Road, Improvement Trust Colony near Uma Kaushal Hospital, under the instructions of S.P.(O), Gurdaspur. A number of police officials namely Gajender Singh, SHO, Police Station City, Gurdaspur, Virender Singh, SHO, P.S., Dina Nagar, SI Sakkatar Singh, SHO, P.S. Kahnuwan, Sulkhan Singh, SHO, PP Sujanpur and Avtar Singh, Incharge CIA Staff, Pathankot were also a part of the police party. At about 9.00 P.M., a white Maruti Car came to that side from the side of Kalanaur. The car was signalled to halt by a torch signal. There were three persons occupying the rear seat of the car. The person, who was occupying right side seat of the car, was apprehended by ASI Mohan Singh. That person gave his name as Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Kulbir Singh who is the appellant before this Court. ASI Mohan Singh conducted his personal search. Appellant found carrying one AK-47 rifle along with magazine in his right hand. One magazine AK-47 was recovered from the left dub of chadder he had wrapped around himself. Each magazine on unloading was found to contain 25 rounds. The appellant could not produce any licence for retaining AK-47 rifle and the rounds recovered from his possession. The case property was put into parcels which were sealed and the seal, after use, was handed over to HC Manjit Singh. The recovery was effected on 1.5.2001. It was on account of the recovery of an unlicenced AK-47 Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -3- **** rifle along with 50 rounds (cartridges) that case FIR No. 42 dated 1.5.2001 under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act came to be registered against the appellant. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge against appellant, examined PW-1 Hira Lal, PW-2 Vipan Kumar PW-2 ASI Mohan Singh, PW-2 ASI Mohan Singh, PW-3 DSP Puran Singh, PW-4 HC Major Singh and PW-5 HC Ajvinder Singh. PW-1 Hira Lal an official in the office of District Magistrate, Gurdaspur proved the sanction order Ex. PA , authorising the prosecution of the appellant in the present case. PW-2 ASI Mohan Singh, is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW-2 MHC Vipan Kumar, recorded the FIR Ex. PF/1. The case property was deposited with him by ASI Mohan Singh on 2.5.2001. On that very day, the case property was sealed by DSP P.S. Purewal concerned as well. He handed over the case property to ASI Tilak Raj on 22.6.2001 for being handed over in the office of F.S.L., Chandigarh. ASI Tilak Raj returned to the headquarters on 22.6.2001 and handed over the receipt ( issued by the F.S.L., Chandigarh) to the MHC. PW-4 HC Major Singh proved rapat dated 2.5.01 (Ex. PH). PW-5 HC Ajvinder Singh, was an official member of the police party which held the Naqabandi. Ex. PG is the FSL report to the effect that AK-47 rifle and Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -4- **** 50 cartridges which were forwarded to it for analysis were found in working condition. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and averred false implication in the case. Besides tendering Ex. Dl to Ex. D3 (certifried copies of statements of Gajinder Singh, Inspector Ajaib Singh and ASI Vijay Kumar respectively), the appellant also stepped into the witness box as his own witness, Learned Trial Court upheld the prosecution presentation declined the appellant's plea of innocence and indicted the appellant. I have heard Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. B.S.Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that prosecution presentation deserves to be outrightly discarded in view of the fact that no independent witness had been associated with police party and the prosecution has not succeeded in connecting the appellant with the impugned recovery. The further plea in the context is that he had been illegally taken into custody by the police of Gurdaspur in the last week of April, 2001. Thereafter, he was detained at the CIA Staff, Gurdaspur for 2-3 days. It was in the course of his detention over there that it came to his notice that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Reliance, in support of the last indicated plea, was placed upon the fact that the appellant Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -5- **** had already been made a grievance of his false implication to the Punjab Human Rights Commission. Learned State Counsel re-iterated the correctness of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. The pleas advocated on behalf of the appellant are all devoid of merit. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is a matter of common observation that members of public are reluctant to associate with the police. No body wants to undergo the trauma of having to waste his time and energy by frequent visits to the Court for being examined at the trial. The police in this country does not enjoy the confidence of the public. By and large, essential people view any association with the police with disfavour. In that view of things, an otherwise validly proved prosecution presentation cannot be discarded just because no independent member of the public was associated in the party. In that very context, it requires pertinent notice that official witnesses are as good as the independent witness, particularly when there is no proof on the file that they had any inimical inclination viz-a-viz the appellant or that they had any other reason on account of which they may have been inclined to falsely implicate the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is not on a firmer footing on the other count as well. As evident from the substantive evidence recorded in this case and also the statement made by prosecution witnesses in the main case, copies whereof were tendered into evidence as Ex. D1 to Ex. D3, the official witnesses Criminal Appeal No.527-SB of 2004 -6- **** had given a clear, unambiguous and clinching testimony with regard to manner in which the appellant came to be apprehended with the unlincenced AK-47 rifle and 50 rounds which were contained in two magazines. They detailed the sequence of events from holding of Naqabandi and culminating in the impugned recovery from the person of the appellant and also the magazines he was carrying in right dub of the chadder wrapped upon the appellant. I see no justification to discard the testimony of official witness in the circumstances of the case. Insofar as the complaint made by the appellant to Punjab Human Rights Commission is concerned, it just does not enure for the benefit of the appellant in any manner. The only fact proved on the file is the factum of the appellant having filed the complaint with the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. There is no finding by the Commission that the appellant had been illegally detained, mcuh less prior to the date on which his arrest was shown in the record. In the light of the foregoing discussion, appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The impugned finding of conviction shall stand affirmed. August 22, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE