Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 895 (AP)

Golla Lingamaiah v. State Of A. P.

2003-07-18

K.C.BHANU

body2003
K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED in Sessions Case No. 13/1998 on the file of the I Additional District and sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed the present appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment, dated 20. 12. 1999. ( 2 ) THERE is no representation for the accused-appellant. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. On 21. 12. 1997 P. W. 3-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station, raided the field of the accused and found Ganja being cultivated in the middle of paddy crop. The sample sent for analysis was found to be Cannabis (Ganja ). P. W. 3 filed a charge sheet. A charge under Section 20 (a) (i) of the N. D. P. S. Act was framed. Accused denied his guilt. Prosecution examined three witnesses and marked five documents. The trial court on assessment of the evidence on record found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgment challenging which the accused filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) EX. P5 is the analysis report. It remains unchallenged. Therefore, it can be said that the sample contained Ganja. Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution has established that the accused raised the plants in question. Admittedly the accused was not arrested at the scene of occurrence. He allegedly ran away on seeing the police. The Ganja Plants were seized under ex. P1. The plants were seized from survey No. 949 situated y the side of Gundam river which was at a distance of 3 Kms. from Thanda village. There was no direct evidence to show that the accused raised Ganja plants in the middle of paddy crop. Therefore, it was for the Prosecution to prove that the land belonged to the accused. The Prosecution attempted to prove so by examining three witnesses. P. W. 1 is the Veterinary Doctor. He stated that he saw one person running away from the field of the accused. He did not identify that person. He did not know the owner of the field, as admitted by him in his cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of this witness is of no help at all to connect the accused with the crime. He stated that he saw one person running away from the field of the accused. He did not identify that person. He did not know the owner of the field, as admitted by him in his cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of this witness is of no help at all to connect the accused with the crime. ( 4 ) P. W. 2 is the Village Administrative Officer of Chennampalle village. He stated that he accompanied the police to the land in Survey No. 949 and in his presence the Ganja plants were seized. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know the owner of the fields. The evidence of P. W. 2 is also of no assistance to the Prosecution. Now what remains is only the evidence of P. W. 3-the S. I. of Police, Owk Police Station. He stated that he along with staff went to the field of the accused and on seeing them the accused ran away. He stated that he, P. Ws. 2 and two Constables identified the accused. But, those two Constables were not examined. P. W. 3 did not say that he knew the accused even prior to the incident. No document was filed to show that the land in question belonged to the accused. No revenue records were produced to show the owner of the land. No descriptive particulars of the land were mentioned in ex. P1. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused was the owner of the land or he was cultivating the land in question. ( 5 ) THE trial court observed that the name of the accused was mentioned in Ex. P1 as the owner of the land. Simply relying on the recitals in Ex. P1 it came to the conclusion that the accused was the owner of the land. The recitals in Ex. P1 cannot be substantive evidence. They can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker of Ex. P1. None of the Prosecution witnesses stated that the accused was the owner of the land. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and so the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside.