Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 368 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Rakh

2013-02-13

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was filed against acquittal order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar District Sri Ganganagar. The learned lower court by its judgment dated 10.5.1989 in Sessions Case No. 18/1988 had ordered that accused Ram Rakh is acquitted from the charge under Section 8/17 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.2-4. In appeal the State of Rajasthan has raised the following grounds: (1) that the judgment of the lower court is contrary to law and facts. I am sorry to say that memo of appeal does not contain any averment on the basis of which it can be said that the judgment of the lower court is contrary to law and facts of the case. (2) that the lower court has not relied upon the statement of Manohar Lal, A.S.I. and no reasons have been given to disbelieve his statement. I have perused the record of the lower court. The statement of Manohar Lal, A.S.I. was not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. He was not a witness of sterling worth. In the circumstances of the case, the learned lower court did not put reliance on the testimony of the witness Manohar Lal, ASI and I agree with the finding of the learned lower court in this respect. (3) It has been argued on behalf of the appellant-State that the accused did not produce any witness in his defence, so the accused should have been convicted by the lower court. This argument of the appellant-State is also not tenable because the prosecution should stand on its own legs and it is nowhere required for the accused to produce witness. When the prosecution story could not proceed further beyond the stage of doubt then accused was not bound to produce any defence of on his behalf. (4) One of the arguments of the appellant was that recovery of opium was well proved in the lower court but the lower court has not relied upon the story of recovery. This argument of the appellant is also not supported by the facts on record. 5. The only Motbir who had been produced on behalf of the prosecution in the lower court was PW-3 Banwari Lal. He was declared hostile on the request of the Public Prosecutor. He has not supported the story of recovery of opium. This argument of the appellant is also not supported by the facts on record. 5. The only Motbir who had been produced on behalf of the prosecution in the lower court was PW-3 Banwari Lal. He was declared hostile on the request of the Public Prosecutor. He has not supported the story of recovery of opium. He specifically denied the prosecution story and says that it is false to say that 100 gms. of opium would have been recovered from the accused.6. Thus, there is only one statement of Manohar Lal, ASI who says that on 12.12.1987 at about 10.15 a.m., he took Motbir Banwari Lal with him and on the information received from Mukhbir, he reached to the dhani of accused and when accused started running on seeing the police person, he stopped the accused and in presence of one more witness Jagdish (who has not been produced by the prosecution), he recovered 100 gms of opium from the possession of accused Ram Rakh.7. This is surprising to note that witness Manohar Lal, ASI himself made the recovery, he himself recorded the statements of the witnesses and then he himself investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.8. In cross-examination witness Manohar Lal, ASI states that in the process of recovery, three constables and one private witness accompanied him. He says that seized articles were kept in Malkhana but the items were not sealed by any seal of the police station. He also admits that information of recovery was given to his higher officer but this fact has not been proved in the court. He also does not state that he had given his own search to any one before making recovery from the accused person.9. In these circumstances of the case, the learned lower court has acquitted accused-appellant Ram Rakh from the charge of Section 8/17 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.10. Accused Ram Rakh was 71 years old at the time of his arrest as shown in his remand papers. We are running in the year 2013, that means, 26 years have been passed after his arrest. He must be of the age of 97 years by this time.11. Accused Ram Rakh was 71 years old at the time of his arrest as shown in his remand papers. We are running in the year 2013, that means, 26 years have been passed after his arrest. He must be of the age of 97 years by this time.11. Looking to the evidence produced in the learned lower court and after hearing arguments of both the parties, I am convinced that the acquittal order passed by the learned lower court in this case is not against the facts or law and in the circumstances of the case, this appeal of the State of Rajasthan deserves dismissal, which is hereby dismissed and the judgment dated 10.5.1989 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar is affirmed. The bail bonds submitted by the respondent-accused Ram Rakh for the purpose of this appeal are hereby discharged.A copy of this judgment may be sent to the learned lower court with the lower court's file.Appeal dismissed. *******