M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THE only point to be considered in this revision petition is whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act is safe to be sustained on the solitary testimony of SI Katasi Ram.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on September 12, 1976, SI Katasi Ram along with a few police functionaries as well as Manohar Lal, a vendor of establishes operating at Railway Station, Ambala Cantt, had collected in connection with the checking of smugglers. Around 3 a.m. Calcutta Mail came from Saharanpur side. On its halting, the checking party entered a compartment. On the other end, the petitioner, Mota Singh, alighted from the compartment and was seen carrying a steel box of back colour quickening his pace. On suspicion, the petitioner was stopped and his truck was checked. From inside the trunk was found 8 kgs. of opium, concealed in a faslse bottom of the trunk. A sample of the opium was taken. The sample as also the bulk were separately sealed. The matter was investigated and finally put up for trial. The prosecution examined only two witnesses of the recovery i.e. SI Katasi Ram and Manohar Lal. The trial Court discarded the statement of Manohar Lal, taking the view that he was an available witness of the police, he having been cited as a prosecution witness in nine cases. However, the statement of SI Katasi Ram was believed to record conviction. The lower appellate Court, however, believed Manohar Lal, opening that he could not be called a stock witness of the police and that the maximum what could be said against him was that he had been cited as a prosecution witness in a few cases earlier to the instant recovery and in a few cases afterwards. He also took the view that when SI Katasi Ram PW joined Manohar Lal in the checking party, he may not have known that he had earlier been cited as a prosecution witness in a few cases and that it had not been brought in evidence that any of the said previous cases had been investigated by SI Katasi Ram.
(3.) THE learned lower appellate Court weighed all doubts in favour of the prosecution. The doubts arising had normally to go in favour of the accused. As in evident, the checking party was organised by SI Katasi Ram who took within its fold besides Manohar Lal other police functionaries also. From, the very fact that his choice fell on Manohar Lal when other police functionaries were there, who were not mere dummies, the fact that Manohar Lal had earlier been cited as a prosecution witness, could not have escaped notice of SI Katasi Ram. This matter raises considerable doubt with regard to the choice of SI Katasi Ram is associating Manohar Lal PW in the checking party. Thus, as it appears to me, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of SI Katasi Ram as well as that Manohar Lal PW, as has been done by the lower appellate Court. For the aforesaid reasoning, the accused-petitioner must be acquitted, giving him the benefit of doubt.;