The scooter of petitioner Chanan Singh, who had managed to escape from the spot, was taken into possession by the police from the place of occurrence. Thus, the identity of petitioner Chanan Singh had been revealed at the time of taking his scooter in possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.W.6/D. The case of petitioner Chanan Singh himself, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that his scooter was already with the police. On the face of it, this plea appears to be an afterthought. As stated above, petitioner Manohar Lal was apprehended at the spot by complainant Narinder Singh and others and was handed over to the police on the same day. The identity of both the petitioners stood established on record. Complainant Narinder Singh (P.W.5) and Nirmal Singh (P.W.4) did not identify accused-petitioner Chanan Singh in Court. Same was the case in respect of Jagir Singh (P.W.3). However, keeping in view the circumstances, explained above, it hardly affects the merits of the case. Petitioner Chanan Singh was a police official. He had remained posted at Police Station City, Ropar. He had also remained posted at Morinda with the Traffic Incharge. It is a matter of common knowledge that public witnesses are generally reluctant to depose against police officials. Besides, Jagir Singh (P.W.3), Ex Sarpanch, had been residing in the same area where petitioner Chanan Singh resided.
