Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1295 (HP)

Govind Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-09-18

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Appellants-convict Govind Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 27.7.2009/28.7.2009, passed by Special Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Govind Singh, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 25.10.2008, Police Party, headed by Satya Parkash (PW-11), was on patrol duty near Aut, Thallaut and Larji Dam side. Satya Parkash was accompanied by Constable Hari Singh (Pw-1), Duni Chand (not examined) and Constable Inder Dev (PW-7). Police party saw the accused, carrying a bag on his shoulder, coming from Shihli side. Seeing the police party, he became perplexed and tried to flee away. On suspicion, he was apprehended and disclosed his name as Govind Singh. The bag was searched and one polythene packet containing Charas was recovered. By associating police officials present on the spot, contraband substance was weighed and found to be 3 kgs. Satya Parkash (PW-11) drew two samples, each weighing 25 grams, and sealed them with four seal impressions of seal ‘N’. Parcels were marked as A-1 and A-2. Bulk parcel was sealed separately with the very same seal impression, bearing six seals. The contraband substance was seized. NCB form (Ex. PW-11/A) was filled up in triplicate. Rukka (Ex. PW-11/B) was sent through Constable Inder Dev (PW-7) to Police Station, Aut, on the basis of which FIR No.148/08, dated 25.10.2008 (Ex.PW-2/A) was recorded by SHO Amar Nath (PW-2). Case file was taken back to the spot. Accused was arrested. Special report (Ex. PW-5/A) was also sent to the concerned Higher Authorities. With the completion of necessary investigation, Satya Parkash handed over the case property to SHO Amar Nath, who resealed the samples as also the bulk parcel with his seal impression ‘Y’ (four and six seals). Thereafter, case property was entrusted to MHC Dina Nath (PW-6), who deposited the same in the Malkhana and made entry in the Malkhana Register (Ex.PW-6/A). Bhup Singh (PW-3) took one sample for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Junga. Thereafter, case property was entrusted to MHC Dina Nath (PW-6), who deposited the same in the Malkhana and made entry in the Malkhana Register (Ex.PW-6/A). Bhup Singh (PW-3) took one sample for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Junga. Report (Ex. PW-9/A) was obtained by the police, which confirmed the contraband substance to be Charas. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up the following defence: “I was working as domestic servant at the house of H.C. Satya Parkash and did not make payment of wages of six months to me. On demand to make payments of wages, he has implicated me in a false case.” 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Assailing the judgment, Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, has invited our attention to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. According to the learned counsel, prosecution case stands rendered doubtful, on account of following three circumstances: (i) Non-association of independent witnesses by the police party; (ii) sample was not made homogeneous; and (iii) defence of the accused stands probablized. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case testimonies of prosecution witnesses fully inspire confidence. There are neither any contradictions nor any improbabilities, variations, discrepancies, rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful in any manner. 8. The fact that police officials were on patrol duty on the relevant date, time and spot stands proved not only by Hari Singh (PW-1), but also Inder Dev (PW-7) and Satya Parkash (PW-11). No independent witness was associated by the police. 9. 8. The fact that police officials were on patrol duty on the relevant date, time and spot stands proved not only by Hari Singh (PW-1), but also Inder Dev (PW-7) and Satya Parkash (PW-11). No independent witness was associated by the police. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eyewitness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 10. It is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 11. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. 11. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See: Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760; Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ); and Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 12. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under :- "6. ... .In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 13. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, when examined, even with circumspection, the testimonies of police officials present on the spot, who conducted the search and seizure operations, to be inspiring in confidence. 14. Satya Parkash (PW-11) has categorically deposed that when police party reached Larji Dam side, they saw the accused who was carrying a bag on his shoulder. 14. Satya Parkash (PW-11) has categorically deposed that when police party reached Larji Dam side, they saw the accused who was carrying a bag on his shoulder. Seeing the police party, accused got perplexed and tried to flee away, but however, on suspicion was apprehended. The bag was searched in the presence of Constables Duni Chand (not examined) and Hari Singh (PW-1). From the bag, one polythene envelope was recovered. It contained Charas in the shape of sticks and balls. The same was weighed with the weights and scale, contained in the IO Kit, and was found to be of 3 kgs. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and marked as A-1 and A-2. They were sealed with seal impression ‘N’, four in number. Remaining bulk Charas was put inside the polythene envelope, which was put in the bag, which was sealed with the very same seal impression, bearing six seals. Specimen seal (Ex. PW-1/A) was handed over to Constable Hari Singh (PW-1). NCB form (Ex. PW-11/A) was filled up in triplicate. Contraband substance was seized vide recovery memo (Ex.PW-1/B), which was signed by Constable Hari Singh and Duni Chand. Rukka (Ex. PW-11/B) was taken through Constable Inder Dev, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) was registered. Accused was served grounds of arrest and was arrested vide Memo (Ex. PW-1/C). This witness also handed over the case property to the SHO. Also, Special Report (Ex. PW-5/A) was sent through Constable Amit Barwal (PW-4) to the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police. In Court, he has identified the bulk sealed parcel (Ex. P-2), envelope/bag (Ex. P-4 & P-5). 15. We find that extensive cross-examination of this witness has not rendered his original version to be shaky or uninspiring in confidence in any manner. In fact, his version stands fully corroborated by Hari Singh (PW-1), who has further explained that weights and scales were carried by the I.O. in his Kit. Also, Inder Dev (PW-7) has supported the version of recovery of Charas from the conscious possession of the accused. 16. No doubt, these police officials stand extensively cross-examined and an endeavour was made to establish that independent witnesses could have been associated, but then from the unrebutted testimony of Satya Parkash (PW-11), we find that all proceedings took place on the spot, where no independent person was otherwise available. 16. No doubt, these police officials stand extensively cross-examined and an endeavour was made to establish that independent witnesses could have been associated, but then from the unrebutted testimony of Satya Parkash (PW-11), we find that all proceedings took place on the spot, where no independent person was otherwise available. Accused, who was trying to flee away, was apprehended and on suspicion his bag was searched. It was a case of chance recovery. Police was carrying I.O. Kit containing all material and as such proceedings were conducted on the spot in the early hours of 25.10.2008. As such, non-association of independent witnesses in the given facts and circumstances, particularly when testimony of police officials, even when examined with circumspection, fully inspires confidence, cannot be said to be fatal. It cannot be said that witnesses have deposed falsely or their credit stands impeached, rendering their testimonies to be unworthy of credence or the witnesses to be unreliable or untrustworthy. Thus, non-association of independent witnesses stands reasonably explained. 17. It be also observed that prosecution case stands fully established even by link evidence. Satya Parkash entrusted the case property to SHO Amar Nath (PW-2), who in turn affixed his seal and handed over the same to MHC Dina Nath (PW-6). Conjoint reading of testimonies of these witnesses would only reveal that the case property was received, sealed and safely kept in the Malkhana. That seal ‘Y’ was affixed by SHO Amar Nath also stands proved on record. Malkhana Register (Ex. PW-6/A) and the Road Certificate (Ex. PW-3/A) stand proved on record. There is proper entry of the contraband substance and other case property recorded therein. Report of the FSL (Ex. PW-9/A) is also on record, certifying the contraband substance to be Charas. Bhup Singh (PW-3), who took the sample for chemical examination, has also deposed that as long as the sample remained with him, the same remained intact. Case property was also produced in the Court and the seals were found to be intact. 18. On the basis of Rukka (Ex. PW-11/B), FIR (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered by SHO Amar Nath. We also find that Satya Parkash sent information of the recovery of the contraband substance to the superior officer, which fact stands proved through the testimony of Amit Barwal (PW-4) and Lachhman Dass (PW-5). 19. Case of the prosecution is that Charas was recovered from one polythene packet. PW-11/B), FIR (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered by SHO Amar Nath. We also find that Satya Parkash sent information of the recovery of the contraband substance to the superior officer, which fact stands proved through the testimony of Amit Barwal (PW-4) and Lachhman Dass (PW-5). 19. Case of the prosecution is that Charas was recovered from one polythene packet. It was in the shape of sticks and balls. No doubt, Satya Parkash (PW- 11) does state that he made the sample homogeneous, but then it is not the case of prosecution either that Charas was recovered from more than one packet. Samples were drawn from the Charas so recovered, which was in the shape of sticks and balls. Hence, this fact alone would not render the prosecution case to be fatal. Report of the FSL clearly reveals that the sealed sample was opened, weighed and tested. Also there is not much variation in the weight of the sample. In any case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused. 20. Defence taken by the accused cannot be said to have been probablized at all. Satya Parkash categorically denies the suggestion so put to him in this regard. Noticeably, accused has not led any evidence to even prima facie show that he was engaged as a domestic servant in the house of the Investigating Officer. As such, the plea only merits rejection. 21. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.