Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1298 (PNJ)

Ved Parkash v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-25

VIRENDER SINGH

body2002
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Ved Parkash son of Tarsem Chand, Pawan Kumar son of Bikramjit and Billu Ram son of Jagdish Chand are the appellants who stand convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred as the Act) and have been sentenced to under go RI for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 7.6.1993, Inspector Jaspal Singh alongwith other police officials was present on the bridge of canal minor of Kulburchha road going from Kulburchha to Samaria. A special nakabandi was done on that day. A truck from the side of Kulburchha was seen coming and the same was stopped with the signal of torch light. In the process of stopping, two persons came out of the cabin and jumped from the truck. They managed to escape. They were followed by the co- officials of Inspector Jaspal Singh but taking advantage of darkness they had managed to run away. However, one person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Billu son of Jagdish Chand. The names of other two persons who had fled away were disclosed by Billu Ram as Ved Parkash alias Veda and Pawan Kumar Jain. The number of the truck was PB-11-C-9129. The truck was searched according to the provisions of the Act as appellant-Billu Ram had allegedly reposed confidence in Inspector Jaspal Singh and on search 15 bags of poppy husk were allegedly recovered. The samples were drawn. The other legal formalities were also done at the spot. The truck was also taken into possession. On the ruqa sent, the present case was registered. 3. The trial court charged all the appellants under section 15 of the Act and on consideration of entire evidence, all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Bipin Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Inderjit Singh Gehlot, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also gone through the records of the case. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Bipin Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Inderjit Singh Gehlot, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also gone through the records of the case. 5. So far as the case of Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar are concerned, Mr. Ghai has vehemently argued that the prosecution miserably fails as it has not been able to connect these two appellants with the commission of the alleged offence. Advancing his arguments that these two appellants, Mr. Ghai has submitted that in this regard the statements of Inspector Jaspal Singh PW-2, SI Satpal Singh PW-3 and Mahavir Singh MHC PW-4 are to be scanned minutely. So far as Inspector Jaspal Singh is concerned, he has not identified these two appellants in the court and only stated that their co-accused Billu Ram (appellant) had disclosed their names as his companions, (Billu Ram was apprehended at the spot). It is then contended by Mr. Ghai that Inspector Jaspal Singh has also admitted that no identification parade was held. So far as other two witnesses namely SI Satpal Singh PW-3 and HC Mahavir Sigh PW-4 are concerned, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that these two witnesses had identified Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar in the court for the first time as companions of co-accused Billu Ram and that these witnesses have categorically admitted that they did not know these two persons previously. 6. Admittedly, no identification parade was also held as per statement of these two witnesses. Mr. Ghai, thus, contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case qua Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar to the hilt and they deserve acquittal. So far as the Billu Ram appellant is concerned, Mr. Ghai has half-heartedly argued his case. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has strenuously argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the, appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and their conviction is to be maintained. 8. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been bale to prove its case against Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar appellants. Admittedly, these two appellants were not apprehended at the spot. 8. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been bale to prove its case against Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar appellants. Admittedly, these two appellants were not apprehended at the spot. They were named by their co-accused Billu Ram owner and driver of the truck. This statement legally carries no weight and cannot lend any support to the prosecution. None of the official witnesses knew these two appellants earlier. Admittedly, no identification parade was held after they were apprehended. Their identification for the first time in the court is also of no consequence an thus, these two appellants cannot be legally hauled up for the offence charged against them. The prosecution story qua these appellants can also be doubted in the light of the statement of Inspector Jaspal Singh PW2 who in his cross-examination has admitted that there were 25 police officials in two vehicles, one Allwyn Nissan and other Gypsy and it is not believable on the face of it that two persons who had allegedly managed to escape taking the benefit of darkness could not be chased by 25 police officials. It can also be visualised that some of the police officials out of this lot, must be having arms with them. Keeping in consideration the totality of the facts and the legal infirmities, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar with the commission of the alleged offence. The impugned judgment qua them is set-aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them. 9. So far as Billu Ram appellant is concerned, he was apprehended at the spot and his truck was searched after completing all the legal formalities according to the Statute and in the search 15 bags of poppy husk were recovered. Learned counsel for the appellant could not pin-point any infirmity so far as conviction of Billu Ram appellant is concerned and consequently, his conviction recorded by the trial court is hereby maintained. 10. No other point has been raised by either side before me. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. Ved Parkash and Pawan Kumar appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. They are discharged of their bail bonds. Qua Billu Ram appellant, the appeal is hereby dismissed.