Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 406
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Sheela Alias
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 1981 of 2002,
Criminal Revision No. 2226 of 2002,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 27, 2009
The reliability of official witnesses' evidence and the sufficiency of evidence in proving the prosecution's case were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Illicit Liquor - Punjab Excise Act - Section 61(1)(c) - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused for distilling illicit liquor under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts based on reliable evidence and rejected the defense's arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the production of case property.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for distilling illicit liquor under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act based on evidence of a raid conducted by the police, witness testimonies, and recovery of illicit liquor and working still components.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused, citing reliable evidence and rejecting the defense's arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the production of case property.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, the presence of independent witnesses, and the production of case property in the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of official witnesses' evidence, stating that the absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court also held that the non-production of complete case property does not automatically lead to the failure of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, and the judgments of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial and appellate courts were upheld.
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition 1981 of 2002, filed by Sheela alias Sushil, and Criminal Revision Petition No. 2226 of 2002, filed by Karan Singh and Oma, against the judgment 13.09.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- II, Jind, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.05.2001, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon (Jind), convicting the accused (now revision-petitioners), for the offence punishable under Section 61 (1 )(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter called as the Act only) and awarding them sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, which was paid.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.12.1996, Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, of Police Station Safidon, alongwith other Police officials, was present, at the Bus Stand of village Singhana, in connection with patrol duty, when a secret information was received, that Karan Singh son of Zila, Oma son of Maman and Sushil @ Sheela son of Satpal, residents of village Singhana were distilling illicit liquor by means of working still and, if a raid was conducted, they could be apprehended/red handed. On receipt of this information, ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. A raiding party was constituted, which was headed by Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. The said raiding party reached the aforesaid place. Karan Singh, accused was feeding fire, in the hearth (chulha), Sushil, accused was changing water in the cooler (degacha) and Oma, accused was putting the plastic pipe in the rubber tube. The working still was in operation. About 40 bottles of illicit liquor had been distilled, which had been put in a rubbertube. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. The components of the working still alongwith a drum, containing 110 Kgs. of lahan partially distilled and fit for further distillation,the sample, which was taken from the illicit liquor, filled in the tube and the tube, containing the remaining illicit liquor, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed and taken into possession, vide recovery memo. The accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned.
3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Bir Bhan, Head Constable, (PW-1), Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector,(PW-2), Ramesh Kumar, Constable, (PW-3), Atma Nand, Excise Inspector,(PW-4) and Sumer Singh, Constable, (PW-5). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put allthe incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred, by the accused-appellants, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.09.2002, by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jind.
8. Still dis-satisfled, the aforesaid revision-petitions were filed, by the revision-petitioners.
9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Courts below, by relying upon the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of Rohtash Singh, Assi
