Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 256 (JHR)

Ram Janam Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-17

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2001 passed by Shri Udai Narain Singh, learned 3rd additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Narcotic Case No. 4 of 1993 by which judgment he found the appellant guilty u/s 20-A of N.D.P.S Act and sentenced him to P.I. for four years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for ere year. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel fur the appellant that except the informant and co-police witnesses, there is no independent witness to prove that any plant of ganja was recovered from the premises of the a appellant nor there is any scientific report that said plant if at all, recovered from the house of the appellant was in fact ganja plants. In that view of the matter, the conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the case and stated that the police witnesses have identified the plant as ganja and the appellant has rightly been convicted. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Vijay Kumar Singh, S.I. Vishrampur, Palamau stating therein that on 14.11.1992 on receiving information that the accused appellant is growing ganja plant in his house, he along with other police officers raided the house of the accused and found about eight ganja plants from the angan of the accused who were about six fit in height and he made seizure of the plant in presence of the independent witnesses. Subsequently, he himself investigated the case and submitted charge sheet in this case filed by other I.O. since he was transferred. 6. Since, the case was exclusively triable by Special Judge in N.D.P.S. Act the case was transferred to the said Court and cognizance was taken, charges were framed and the accused was tried. 7. It appears in course of trial prosecution has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is Nauhku Vishwakarma, P.W. 2 is Ram Kishun Thakur, P.W. 3 is Deo Pujan Singh. 7. It appears in course of trial prosecution has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is Nauhku Vishwakarma, P.W. 2 is Ram Kishun Thakur, P.W. 3 is Deo Pujan Singh. P.W. 4 is Vijay Kumar Singh, P.W. 5 is Raghunath Hesa is the S.I., Excise Department, Dhanbad. 8. It is important to note that P.W. 1 and 2 have although stated that they signed the seizure list but nothing was recovered in their presence. P.W. 3-Deo Pujan Singh is the S.I. who has taken charge of investigation from the earlier I.O.-Cum-informant Vijay Kumar Singh, has proved the written report as Ext.1, formal F.I.R. Ext. 2 and seizure list Ext. 3 and said that he submitted the charge sheet and he identified the signature, of the I.O. In the cross examination he has admitted that the report was not prepared in his presence, fie has further stated that the seized article were sent for chemical examination to the government laboratory bin no report has been received and he has got no sample of the same P.W. 4 Vijay Kumar Singh is the informant-cum earlier I.O. who investigated the case. He proved the fact that he has seized the eight number of ganja plants from the place of occurrence but seized articles were not produced in the trial court. Since, the same was not available with him he has denied that he has taken the statement of seizure witnesses. P.W. 5-Raghuuath Hesa, S.I., Excise Department has examined the plant and submitted the report, fie gave wrong date of present case. The defence has also examined two witnesses P.W. 1 & 2. 9. It is important to note that the prosecution has failed to prove that the plants, if any, recovered by the inform am-P.W. 4, was ganja plant or not. There is no report of the F.S.L. that the recovered plant was ganja plant nor the independent witnesses have supported any recovery was made in their presence, even the investigation is faulty in nature. Since, the I.O. who recorded his own statement as F.I.R., subsequently, himself proved the investigation against the mandate of law. There is no report of the F.S.L. that the recovered plant was ganja plant nor the independent witnesses have supported any recovery was made in their presence, even the investigation is faulty in nature. Since, the I.O. who recorded his own statement as F.I.R., subsequently, himself proved the investigation against the mandate of law. Since, it has been ruled by the Hon'ble Court that if the police officer who records his own statement in F.I.R. takes of the investigation himself then the said investigation will be improper as he may not be impartial in investigation of the case i.e. what is in this case is also were in absence of any Forensic Science Laboratory Report only on the ocular assessment of the police officers the plant, if at all seized were declared to be ganja. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed 10 prove the charges leveled against him. 10. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2001 passed by Shri Udai Narain Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Narcotic Case No. 4 of 1993 is set aside. The appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of his bail bond.