Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 49 (RAJ)

Satpal v. State of Rajasthan

1996-01-11

D.C.DALELA

body1996
Honble DALELA, J. – By the judgment and order dated 31.7.95, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, has convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under section 8/15,NDPS Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. In default of fine two years further rigorous imprisonment was directed. Against this conviction and sentence, the appeal has been preferred. (2). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (3). According to the prosecution, crushed poppy was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants out of which 11 samples of 250 gms. each were separately sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Labo- ratory, Jaipur, whereupon it was reported that the samples were found to be dried crushed capsules of poppy. The FSL report is Ex. P 27. (4). A perusal of Ex. P 27 would show that the samples contained in 11 packets marked `A to `K were received by the Laboratory and the samples contained therein were examined. Obviously, the important question is whether the samples contained in the packets marked `A to `K were in fact recovered from the possession of the accused appellants? The recovery memo is Ex. P 1.A. perusal thereof would show that samples recovered from the possession of the Accused-appellants and sealed in 11 packets were not marked `A `B, `C, `D, `E, `F, `G, `H, `I, `J, and `K, Nowhere has it been mentioned in Ex. P 1 that the samples recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants were marked as A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.J. and K. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, but none of them has deposed that the samples recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants were packed in 11 packets and marked as A.B.C.D.E.F. G.H.I.J and K. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the samples recovered from the possession of the accused- appellants and sealed were not marked as indicated above and mentioned FST report EX. P 27. (5). The Ex.P 26 is the office copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, addressed to the Director, Forensic Science Labo- ratory, Jaipur, by which 11 samples alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused appellants were sent for the chemical examination. P 27. (5). The Ex.P 26 is the office copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, addressed to the Director, Forensic Science Labo- ratory, Jaipur, by which 11 samples alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused appellants were sent for the chemical examination. A perusal of this letter would show that 11 packets having marks A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.J and K. were sent to the FSL for chemical examination. This letter is dated 17.1.94. Even if it taken that on 17.1.94 the office of the SP or SP, himself put the above marks on the samples which were sent to the FSL, it would mean that the samples were brought in the office of the SP or before the SP and there the marks as aforesaid were put, but Mal-Khana register of the Police Station Ex. P 8 shows that after the receipt of the samples on 9.1.1994, they were issued from Mal- Khana of the Police Station only on 2.2.1994. The Officer Incharge of the Malkhana Ranjit Singh (PW 2) has deposed that the samples were received in the Mal-Khana on 9.1.94 and they were issued therefrom only on 2.2.94 to the messenger, who carried to the FSL. Thus, the evidence of Ranjit Singh (PW 2) and the Ex.P8, it is evident that the samples were not issued from Mal-Khana on 17.1.94 when the letter Ex. P 26 was issued by the SP, Sriganganagar. From this circumstance, it is evident that the samples recovered from the accused-appellants were not marked as `A to `K as indicated in Ex. P 26 by the SP or in the office of the SP. Thus, the samples recovered from the accused-appellants were never marked as `A it `K. If the samples or the packets were so marked and then they were not those which were recovered from the accused-appellants. Therefore, it seems that the FSL report Ex.P 27 is not in respect of the samples which were in fact recovered from the accu- sed-appellants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the substance recovered from the accused appellants were crushed poppy. (6). There is also an unexplained discrepancy in the weight of the samples, from the recovery memo, Ex.P 1, it is evident that all 11 samples were 250 gms. in weight each. Whereas the FSL report Ex.P 27 shows that each sample was 275 gms. (6). There is also an unexplained discrepancy in the weight of the samples, from the recovery memo, Ex.P 1, it is evident that all 11 samples were 250 gms. in weight each. Whereas the FSL report Ex.P 27 shows that each sample was 275 gms. in weight along with the cloth cover. Thus, according to the recovery memo, the weight of each sample recovered from the possession of the accused appellants was 250 gms. while the samples received by the FSL were 275 gms. along with the cloth cover. The discrepancy in the weight of the sample has not been explained by the prosecution and consequently, it also goes to indicate that the report Ex.P 27 does not relate to the samples which were recovered from the possession of the accused appellants. (7). From the above discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recove- red from the possession of the accused-appellants were in fact crushed poppy and consequently, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused-appellants. (8). In the result, this appeal is allowed on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused-appe- llants are acquitted of the offence under section 8/15, NDPS Act. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.