NDPS Act | Statement Of Police Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded If They Inspire Confidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the statement of police officials cannot be discarded because they are police officials, however their testimonies must inspire confidence.

Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed the plea challenging the conviction of a man who was convicted under Section 15 of NDPS Act for involving in trade of contraband and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2002.

It was alleged that in 1997 the appellant Joginder Singh along with three other was caught by Police and upon inspection of their jeep, six bags of 38.5 kgs of poppy husk was found.

The Court rejected the argument that the contraband was planted because despite the time of a search being broad day light and independent witnesses readily available, and when the Deputy Superintendent of Police could have come, then other non-police official was not called to join as an independent witness.

"It is indisputable that the investigator and his superior officer neither associated nor tried to join any independent witness or rendered any explanation. An analysis of judicial precedents would be necessary to determine the effect of such lapse, admissibility of testimonies of police officials, and prejudice caused to the accused," observed the Court.

Reliance was placed upon In Masalti v. State of UP (1965) in which the Apex Court said, "There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are paryisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses...Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

It further referred to  Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996)  wherein Supreme Court said "...In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence."

Reference was also made to Krishan Chand v. State of HP, (2018) where the Supreme Court held, "From the evidence which has come on record, it is quite clear that the place, where the accused is alleged to have been apprehended, cannot be said to be an isolated one as the house of Govind Singh DW-2 is situated on the edge of Patarna bridge. Thus the version of the complainant PW-6 that independent witnesses could not be associated as it was an isolated place does not inspire confidence."

Referring to Masalti case (supra), the bench said, "if the witnesses are not accomplices, what then is their position? There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses."

It further added that Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. "We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses."

Justice Chitkara also referred to Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana 92013) to state that the obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute...If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated.

"It is settled law that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness; it is desirable to examine independent witness, however, in the absence of any such witness, if the statements of police officers are reliable and when there is no animosity established against them by the accused, conviction based on their statement cannot be faulted with [Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC 395, [Para 3]," added the Court.

Justice Chitkara also quoted British philosopher, jurist, and social reformer Jeremy Bentham to state, "“Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice."

"While the Indian Evidence Act 1872 does not explicitly provide a definition for a witness, the definition of ‘Fact’ elucidates an understanding that a witness is one who perceives, infers, or possesses knowledge of a given fact. It is in the trial that elements of bias, prejudice, and interest are assessed, and resultantly, the admissibility and quality of the evidence are evaluated. A witness is a person who, based on their conscious observation or experience, has relevant knowledge of the happening or non-happening of an event and states or testifies about it. The job of a Judge is to mine and refine the truth," added the judge.

After examining the evidence on record and applying the judicial precedents, the Court opined that the factual scenario that despite an inference that the police intentionally did not associate any independent witness, such non- examination of independent witnesses did not point out that either the police had planted the poppy on the accused, or it was someone else whom the police tried to absolve by implanting the accused, or was prejudicial to the accused.

The Court added that the statements of police officials cannot be discarded because they are police officials; however, before that is done, their testimonies must inspire confidence, which they do in the given evidence proved in this trial, viz-a-viz the nature of suggestions put to the witnesses in the defence, and the joint stand of all the accused in 313 CrPC of denial simpliciter.

In the light of the above stating that the the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Tanu Priya Singh and Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocates for the appellant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 227

Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order