Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 727 (GAU)

Ribison Daimary v. State of Assam

2013-10-04

INDIRA SHAH

body2013
JUDGMENT Indira Shah, J. 1. The Judgment and order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Special (N) Case No. 2/2008 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) and sentencing him thereby to under to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs.20,000 in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months have been challenged. Heard Mr. P.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.04.2008 at around 9.00 p.m. while the police along with SSB personnel were on patrolling duty they noticed the accused carrying suspected Ganja on his bicycle. He was stopped by the SSB personnel and the Ganja like substance was recovered from his possession and seized vide the Ext-1. The accused was then taken to SSB camp and then to the Bhairabkunda police outpost. FIR being lodged by the commandant of 17 battalion SSB Bhairabkunda Officer-in-Charge, Udalguri police station registered case No. 37/2008 under Section 20B of NDPS Act. The seized suspected Ganja was weighed and it was 7 k.g. Sample from the seized Ganja was drawn and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the report, submitted by the Deputy Director of Drugs and Narcotics Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, the sample gave positive test for Cannabis (Ganja). On completion of investigation charge-sheet under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act was submitted against the accused appellant. During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and claimed to be tried. 3. Altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him and pleaded that he was innocent. 4. PW 1 Soumen Roy, PW 2 Santosh Tiwari, PW 3 Subhash Chandra, PW 5 Rabindra Kumar Upadhyay PW 6 Samanta Singh were SSB personnel. They all stated that while they were on patrolling duty at around 9.00 p.m. the accused was apprehended along with suspected Ganja. He was brought to SSB camp and handed over to the police of Bhairabkunda outpost along with the FIR. 5. PW 4 Rajendra Kumar working as was Asstt. Commandant of 17 battalion of SSB at Bhairabkunda. They all stated that while they were on patrolling duty at around 9.00 p.m. the accused was apprehended along with suspected Ganja. He was brought to SSB camp and handed over to the police of Bhairabkunda outpost along with the FIR. 5. PW 4 Rajendra Kumar working as was Asstt. Commandant of 17 battalion of SSB at Bhairabkunda. He deposed that the detailed patrolling party consisting of one Sub-Inspector Soumen Roy and 5 constables who brought the accused to SSB camp. PW 4 was reported that the suspected 7 k.g. of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, PW 4 lodged the FIR at Bhairabkunda police outpost. 6. PW 7, is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the case. He seized the contraband Ganja and the bicycle belonging to the accused. He recorded statements of all witnesses and visited the place of occurrence. According to him, the seized Ganja was weighed and seized in presence of witnesses and weighing scale was also seized. He sent the sample of Ganja to Forensic Science Laboratory and collected the report therefrom. Thereafter, he arrested the accused. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. 7. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of the witnesses that the Ganja was not recovered from the possession of the accused. The seizure of Ganja, the report from the forensic laboratory were not disputed during the cross-examination. Although, the material independent witnesses, who witnessed the seizure of the Ganja were not examined. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by SSB Personnel. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant has already suffered rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months. Considering all aspects the judgment passed by the trial court convicting and is sentencing the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act is upheld. 8. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. Return back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.