Case: Kewal Krishan S/O Dev Raj Vs. State of Punjab

appellant. On November 25, 1981, Gurcharan Singh gave a written complaint to the ASP under Ex. PH. The ASP directed an investigation of his complaint by the Inspector of Police (PW 11). After the investigation, PW 11 filed the charge-sheet against this PW 1 to PW 12 and on the side of the defence DW 1 and DW 2 were examined. The case of the appellant and the other accused was one of total denial. The trial court even before assessing the evidence recorded a finding in paragraph 4 of its judgment with regard to the case of A 2 to A 4, the relevant portion of which reads thusthere is no evidence incriminating, particularly Gurdev Singh and Inder Singh accused. Against Gurcharan Singh also only very brief reference appears in the evidence and for obvious reasons, he has also to be let off3. After making the observation with regard to A 2 to A 4 as above, the trial court found A 1 guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of A 2 to A 4. The convicted appellant (Kewal Krishan) preferred an appeal before the High Court which dismissed the appeal, in our view, in a very summary manner observing as followsThe evidence of this witness looks very natural and truthful. I am of the considered view that the evidence of this witness has statement of his wife Agya Rani (PW 10) who arranged for the money to be paid to the appellant. The recovery of the tube of illicit liquor from the appellant lends further assurance to the prosecution case. The conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge is well merited4. On a thorough examination of the evidence especially of PWs 7 and 10 on which the High Court has rested this finding, we are compelled to disagree with the observation and finding of the High Court for the reasons to be presently stated 5. This case was not registered on any complaint of PW 7 nor any part of the sum [said to have been received by the appellant in the company of the acquitted accused (A 2) from PW] had been recovered. On the other hand, the prosecution claims to have unearthed the offence only on the complaint made by Gurcharan Singh (A 2). It is a case of the prosecution that the offence was committed on November 23, 1981. But the case was registered only on November 26, 1981. PW 12 on receipt of the first information report, took up investigation on November 27, 1981. According to PW 12, he recorded the statement of PWs 7 and 10 only on December 13, 1981 i.e. to say nearly 21 days after the occurrence. But it is surprising to note that PW 7 swears that PW 12 met him on the second or third day of the offence and recorded his statement and thereafter PW 12 did not contact him at all. PW 10 has deposed that the police recorded her statement on the very next day of the occurrence and thereafter she did not meet any police. Thus we find that the evidence of PW 12 on the one hand and the evidence of PW 7 and PW 10 on the other hand is irreconcilably in conflict even with reference to the dates of examination of PWs 7 and 10. If the evidence of PW 7 and PW 10 is to be accepted with regard to the dates of their examination, we have to hold that even earlier to the registration of the case, these two witnesses were contacted by the police and not afterwards. It is brought out in the cross-examination that the evidence of PW 7 in court is not in conformity with the version of his statement (Ex. DA) recorded during the investigation and quite a number of material omissions and contradictions are brought out. PW 7 has gone even to the extent of shielding Gurcharan Singh (acquitted A 2) stating that Gurcharan Singh did not accompany the appellant to his house which part of the evidence is opposed to the prosecution case. Though this witness states that he did not trade in liquor, in the next breath states that he does remember whether he was involved in 20 to 25 excise cases. Then he admits that 10 to 12 excise cases were on trial against him. As per the prosecution, PW 7 was a bootlegger. It is brought out from this witness that he had not told the Investigation Officer that his wife raised an amount of Rs. 1200 by pawning her ornaments. When the witness was asked to explain the omissions found in his statement Ex. DA, he would unhesitatingly reply, "I cannot explain these omissions". From PW 10 it is elicited that she during the investigation stated to the police that her husband with appellant came to her house even at 8 p.m. while the case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to the house of PW 10 only at about 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. DW 1 who was then the writer in the police station (MHC) states that the appellant was at the station at 10.05 p.m. If it is so, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, the appellant could not have accompanied PW 7 at 10.30 or 11 p.m. to his house to get the illegal gratification. Thus a scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 7 and 10 reveals that their version is nothing but a conglomeration of contradictions. In our view their evidence is unworthy of any credence. Further the observation of the High Court that the recovery of the illicit liquor from the room of the appellant lends assurance to the prosecution case is not acceptable because according to PW 4 (the Assistance Sub-Inspector of Police) both the appellant and Gurcharan Singh was under the influence of intoxication at the time when he came to the police station

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is brought out from this witness that he had not told the Investigation Officer that his wife raised an amount of Rs. 1200 by pawning her ornaments. When the witness was asked to explain the omissions found in his statement Ex. DA, he would unhesitatingly reply, "I cannot explain these omissions". From PW 10 it is elicited that she during the investigation stated to the police that her husband with appellant came to her house even at 8 p.m. while the case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to the house of PW 10 only at about 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. DW 1 who was then the writer in the police station (MHC) states that the appellant was at the station at 10.05 p.m. If it is so, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, the appellant could not have accompanied PW 7 at 10.30 or 11 p.m. to his house to get the illegal gratification. Thus a scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 7 and 10 reveals that their version is nothing but a conglomeration of contradictions. In our view their evidence is unworthy of any credence. Further the observation of the High Court that the recovery of the illicit liquor from the room of the appellant lends assurance to the prosecution case is not acceptable because according to PW 4 (the Assistanceof Police) both the appellant and Gurcharan Singh was under the influence of intoxication at the time when he came to the police station