Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 672 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Har Chand Singh

2002-07-16

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - State of Punjab has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 7.7.1993 acquitting the respondents herein under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2.2.1990, SI Manmohan Singh along with ASI Jarnail Singh and other officials of police force were going for patrolling and checking in a vehicle from the side of village Bhundari and Kul Gehna towards village Hujran. When the police party reached in the area of village Hujran, some suspects were seen in a pit in the bed of river Satluj. After stopping the vehicle the members of police party went towards them. One of the persons ran away. However, Harchand Singh and Surjit Singh who were sitting on the gunny bags lying in the pit were apprehended on the spot. They disclosed their identity and of the person who ran away as Tara Singh, resident of village Jalalabad. SI Manmohan Singh offered to carry out the search in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer but accused Harchand Singh and Surjit Singh declined offer. Thereafter, SI Manmohan Singh carried out search and found all the gunny bags numbering 22 containing poppy husk. From each of the bag, two samples weighing 250 grams each were separated and the sample and gunny bags containing the residue poppy husk were kept into sealed parcels with the seal bearing letters MS of SI Manmohan Singh. All the articles including poppy husk bags were taken into police custody through seizure memo Ex.PC. On personal search of Surjit Singh and Harchand Singh some money and wrist watches were recovered and taken into possession. Subsequently, on the basis of ruqa, Ex.PE, FIR Ex.PE/1 was registered. The samples were sent for analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Chandigarh and were found to be poppy straw powder vide report Ex.PG. On completion of investigation, the accused were charged for offence under Section 15 of the Act. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses and produced documents. However, the trial Court on appreciation of evidence found that Section 50 of the Act is mandatory and mere bald statement of police officer that such an offer was declined is not sufficient. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses and produced documents. However, the trial Court on appreciation of evidence found that Section 50 of the Act is mandatory and mere bald statement of police officer that such an offer was declined is not sufficient. The trial Court also found that the prosecution has failed to join any independent witnesses to inspire confidence. Apart from the finding that the recovery was found to be highly discrepant, consequently, the trial Court passed the order of acquittal of respondents. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. Statements of PW3-SI Jarnail Singh and that of PW4 Manmohan Singh are discrepant. SI Jarnail Singh PW3 who was on patrolling and checking while (were sic) going towards village Kul Gehna stated that one of the persons ran away from the site and that he was given a chase. It was stated that police remained at the spot for about 5 hours and the place of recovery is about 4/5 k.m. from the police station. It is admitted by the witnesses that Tara Singh was known to him earlier to the recovery as he had been visiting the police station earlier. On the other hand, PW-4 Manmohan Singh stated that they were patrolling from the side of Bhundari and Kul Gehna towards river Satluj. This part of the statement contradicts the statement of PW3 as he has stated that they were proceedings towards village Kul Gehna whereas PW4 stated that hey were proceeding from the side of village Kul Gehna. It has come in evidence that some persons were present in the fields but the police party had not joined any public person. PW4 states that he had not fired at Tara Singh when he started running nor he recollected whether or not any one had chased him. It is stated that Tara Singh was not known to him earlier and no member of policy party knew him earlier, thus contradicting the statement of PW3 Jarnail Singh. The police had ample opportunities to associate independent witnesses but none was associated, which put serious doubt on the veracity of the story of the prosecution. 6. Thus both the prosecution witnesses who are police officials have contradicted and their statements is not a truthful version. The police had ample opportunities to associate independent witnesses but none was associated, which put serious doubt on the veracity of the story of the prosecution. 6. Thus both the prosecution witnesses who are police officials have contradicted and their statements is not a truthful version. Therefore, while re-appreciating the evidence, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges for offence under section 15 of the Act and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.