Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 102 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Chand

2013-02-25

DEEPAK GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 14.8.2007 delivered by learned Special Judge( Fast Track Court), Solan in Case No. 4 FTC/7 of 2007, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 13.4.2006, PW-9 ASI Ram Chand alongwith other police officials and independent witness PW-2 Chand Kishore was on patrolling duty near Grownghatti. The police officials saw the accused holding a pink colour polythene bag in his right hand. The accused was going towards Gamberpul. On seeing the police party, the accused got perplexed and tried to run away. This aroused the suspicion of the police officials who apprehended the accused and the bag carried by him was searched by PW-9 Ram Chand. It was found to contain another white coloured polythene bag inside which there was charas. According to the prosecution in the presence of the independent witness Chand Kishore the charas was weighed and on weighment the charas was found 700 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. Thereafter the two samples and the remaining bulk charas were packed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal “A” on the spot. Then the charas was taken into possession in the presence of Chand Kishore who signed the recovery memo alongwith PW-1 Head Constable Ranjit Singh. The sample seal impression was taken separately and the seal was handed over to the independent witness Chand Kishore. Thereafter the accused was arrested. Other codal formalities were completed on the spot. The accused alongwith the three parcels containing the charas alongwith NCB forms and sample seal impression “A” were produced in the Police Station before PW-11 SHO Narain Singh, who resealed the parcel with seal “S” and separate impression of the seal was also taken. Thereafter the case property alongwith NCB forms was deposited in the malkhana with PW-7 MHC Jai Singh. Rukka as well as special report in compliance with the provisions of the Act was sent to the concerned Police Officer. FIR Ex. PW-11/A was registered on the basis of the rukka. One sample was sent to the Chemical Analyst through PW-3 Deep Ram. Rukka as well as special report in compliance with the provisions of the Act was sent to the concerned Police Officer. FIR Ex. PW-11/A was registered on the basis of the rukka. One sample was sent to the Chemical Analyst through PW-3 Deep Ram. The Chemical Analyst vide his report Ex.PW-9/G opined that the sample was of charas and on this basis the accused was charged for having committed aforesaid offence. 3. After trial the accused has been acquitted vide impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the independent witness has turned hostile and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and therefore, no reliance on the same can be placed. 4. As far as the independent witness PW-2 Chand Kishore is concerned, he has not at all supported the prosecution case. According to him, he runs a tea stall just outside Police Station, Dharampur and when he had gone to deliver tea to the officials in the Police Station, he was shown some charas and told that it had been recovered by the police and thereafter he was asked by the police officials to sign certain documents. Though, this witness has admitted his signature on the documents keeping in view the fact that he runs a shop just outside the Police Station, his explanation that he signed the documents in the Police Station at the behest of the police officials cannot be brushed aside lightly. 5. The law in this regard is well settled. Even when independent witness turned hostile, the Court can rely upon the statements of the official witnesses to convict the accused. However, there is an important caveat. The statements of the official witnesses should be consistent and should also inspire confidence. In case, there are contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and there is no explanation for the contradictions, then the accused has to be given benefit the of doubt. 6. In the present case, the learned trial Court has clearly set-out the material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses. In case, there are contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and there is no explanation for the contradictions, then the accused has to be given benefit the of doubt. 6. In the present case, the learned trial Court has clearly set-out the material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses. These are as follows:- (a) According to PW-3, the police party had gone to the spot in a grey colour ed Santro Car owned by Head Constable Dev Raj but according to PW-9 ASI Ram Chand Investigating Officer, the car in question was a Maruti Car, (b) According to PW-1 Head Constable Ranjit Singh, the site plan of the spot was prepared with the help of a search light, but according to PW-9 the Investigating Officer, the site plan was prepared in day light. ( c ) Both PW-1 and PW-3 admitted that when the proceedings were being carried out at the spot, it had become dark and after sunset the torch/ search light was used for completing the proceedings on the spot but according to Investigating Officer the proceedings were completed during day light and he had also taken photographs on the spot. The photographs Ex.PW-9/H-1 to Ex.PW-9/H-3 show the sealed parcels which means they were taken after the entire proceedings were completed but the photographs appear to have been taken during day light. (d) The Investigating Officer stated that the rukka Ex. PW-9/A was sent to the Police Station through constable Yashpal but Yashpal was not cited as a witness. (e) That the car in which the accused was allegedly traveling was owned by Head Constable Dev Raj who was also not cited as a witness. 7. In view of the material contradictions in the statements of the police officials with regard to time when the search and seizure operation had taken place and the manner in which they went to the spot in question casts a grave doubt on the prosecution story. Further more, according to police officials the weight and scales were arranged from PW-5 Hasan Deen who supported the prosecution to this extent. However, according to this witness, he had only given two weights of one kilogram and 500 grams only to the police officials. Therefore, the contraband could not have been weighed to be 700 grams with the use of these two weights. However, according to this witness, he had only given two weights of one kilogram and 500 grams only to the police officials. Therefore, the contraband could not have been weighed to be 700 grams with the use of these two weights. To this extent this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution that the weights were of lesser denomination. Despite cross-examination his testimony has not been shattered. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.