Benefit of doubt should go to the defense in cases with serious discrepancies in the evidence, especially when the minimum penalty is prescribed by law.

K. P. S. Sandhu, J.

1. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Ks.5000.00 , in default R. I. for three months under sec. 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala vide his order dated 22.3.1982. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. He has come to this Court in revision.

2. The revision petition was admitted on October 28, 1982 and since then the petitioner is on bail.

3. The case of the prosecution is that a raid was organised on 29.6.1980 by A. S. I. Han Ram. He had secret information before the raid that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still on the bank of the Sem Nallah. On a raid conducted by the raid party, the petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. He was apprehended on the spot.

4. The evidence in this case consists of two official witnesses, namely A. S. I. Han Ram and constable Balbir Singh P. Ws. They are the witnesses of recovery while Inspector Daljit Singh P. W. tested the Lahan. No independent witness was joined by the raid party, although, at the time they started for the raid, a number of persons could be available. Even on receipt of secret information A S. I. , Had Ram did not care to join any witness from the public.

5. Me. H S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through para 5 of the judgment of the trial Court where number of discrepancies have been enumerated between the statements of these two P. Ws. namely P. W.1 Balbir Singh constable and P. W.2 Han Ram A. S. I. The lower Appellate Court brushed aside these discrepancies by saying that there is error in human observation and memory due to lapse of time. The minimum sentence prescribed for such an offence, under the law, is one year R. I. and fine of Rs.5000.00 . I think for such offences where minimum penalty is provided, the Court should insist on a better standard of evidence. In the evidence of these two police officials where the defence has pointed out so many discrepancies to show that the occurrence might not have happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the benefit of such discrepancies should certainly go to the defence and not to the prosecution. In view of a large number of serious discrepancies on material points in the statements of these two P. Ws. namely P. W. I constable Balbir Singh and P. W.2 Han Ram A. S. I. , the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner, cannot be sustained. . Consequently, I give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charge. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed.