Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1146 (MP)

Shakuntali Kol v. State of M. P.

2007-10-30

R.C.MISHRA

body2007
ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge [under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")], Sidhi in Special Case No.259/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted under section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer RI for one month. She was tried on the charge of being found in an illegal possession of I Kg and 100 grams of ganja that is cannabis/hemp within the meaning of section 2(iii)(b) of the Act. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.2.2007 at about 4:20 p.m., a credible information was received at Kotwali Sidhi to the effect that the appellant was indulged in sale of ganja in her house only. Accordingly, Sub-Inspector R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) conducted a raid at the house of the appellant. The raiding party included woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5). After apprising the appellant of her legal right under which she could require presence of a senior officer, her house was searched by joining panch witnesses Kamta Prasad (PW 1) and Ramvilas Tomar (PW 6). During the search, a gunny bag containing 1 Kg and 100 grams of ganja was recovered. The contraband was duly seized. Two samples of 50 gms. each were drawn. One of the samples was forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. Corresponding report (Ex.P-31) indicated that the sample contained ganja. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was put up before the Special Court. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty. However, in the examination, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was asserted that she was falsely implicated at the instance of one Babulal Bhujwa who immediately after death of her husband wanted to grab her house. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including S.1. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9), woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5) and the panch witnesses. The defence was sought to be substantiated by Siyabai (DW 1), an inhabitant of same locality. 5. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced her as indicated hereinabove. 6. The defence was sought to be substantiated by Siyabai (DW 1), an inhabitant of same locality. 5. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced her as indicated hereinabove. 6. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been assailed on the various grounds. However, learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50(4) of the Act in the alleged search and seizure of the contraband and the inconsistencies in the statements of Detecting Officer R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) and other witnesses thereto. But, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, contended that the impugned conviction was fully justified. 7. At the outset, it may be observed that there was no necessity of following the procedure prescribed under section 50 of the Act, as it was a search of the premises and not that of a person. In this view of the matter, the contention that search of the house in exclusive possession of the appellant ought to have been carried by woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5) only is apparently misconceived. 8. Coming to the question of compliance with sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Act, it would be seen that the immediate official superior viz. Deputy S.P., Sidhi was, admittedly, out of headquarters. Moreover, the acknowledgment (Ex.P-11A) given on his behalf by constable Mahendra Pratap Singh (PW2) contained the Crime No.100/07 that could be ascertained only after recording of the FIR (Ex.P-29) at about 7:00 p.m. whereas according to Mahendra Pratap, the envelope containing the covering letter and the copy of relevant entry of the Roznamcha was received by him at 5:00 p.m. Thus, the acknowledgment (Ex.P-11A), being a post-timed document, was indicative of the fact that the information was sent to the office of Deputy S.P. only after arrest of the appellant. In other words, it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the search was conducted after complying with the mandatory requirement of the sub-section. In other words, it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the search was conducted after complying with the mandatory requirement of the sub-section. As explained by the apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [ (1994)3 SCC 299 ], the effect of such non-compliance will certainly have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence of the official witnesses and the other material depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. Although, Sub-Inspector R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) substantially reiterated the prosecution version as incorporated by him in the detailed report (Ex.P-30) forwarded to the S.P. Sidhi yet, the fact remains that none of the panch witnesses has fully corroborated his statement. On the contrary, their evidence suffers from the following infirmities: (i) Both the independent witnesses namely Kamta Prasad (PW1) and Ramvilas Tomar (PW6) were declared hostile and the public prosecutor was able to elicit certain incriminating, yet inconsistent, facts in the cross-examination of Ramvilas only. For example, according to Ramvilas Tomar (PW6), the appellant was apprehended in her house only by Munshiji, i.e., Head Constable Ravi Karan Pandey (PW4) whereas Ravi Karan clearly asserted that the appellant was arrested while selling ganja in front of her house. However, S.I. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) other official witnesses namely Ramsiya Jaiswal (PW7) and Saroj Rawat (PW5) as well as the panch witness Ramvilas had deposed that the appellant was found inside her residence. (ii) Saroj Rawat (PW5) contradicted this fact that every member of the raiding party had got himself/herself searched prior to commencement of search in the house of the appellant. Curiously enough, she questioned as to why she should have been subjected to search by the appellant. Further, even after being declared hostile by the prosecution, she fairly admitted that all the documents pertaining to search and seizure were prepared at the police station only. (iii) There is an apparent inconsistency between the panchnama (Ex.P-2) and corresponding consent letter (Ex.P-2A) inasmuch as in the panchnama, appellant's willingness to get her house searched by the Sub-Inspector was mentioned but in the letter, her consent to get the search done by woman constable Saroj Rawat was also recorded. Further, according to S.I. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9), the appellant was found all alone in her house whereas Saroj Rawat, unequivocally, admitted that appellant's 4 years old son was also present there. Further, according to S.I. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9), the appellant was found all alone in her house whereas Saroj Rawat, unequivocally, admitted that appellant's 4 years old son was also present there. (iv) The contraband, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant, was weighed by Sainik Ramsiya (PW7) and by not any member of the public. Moreover, while corroborating the aforesaid fact, he was not able to disclose that from whom he had brought the balance and weights. 10. These infirmities, being serious in nature, were sufficient to discredit the prosecution evidence whereas the probability of defence was clearly established by the evidence of Siyabai (DW 1) who resides in the immediate proximity of the spot of search. 11. To sum up, not only the violation of the mandatory provision of section 42(2) of the Act entitled the appellant to acquittal [State of Orissa v. A. Rajeshwar Patra (2004) 10 see 557 relied on], but the material contradictions in the statements of detecting officer S.I. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) and the other witnesses of search also pointed to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution story was unworthy of credence. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and consequent sentences passed against the appellant are hereby set aside. Instead, she is acquitted of the charge. Accordingly, she be released forthwith if not required in any other offence. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant.