Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 713 (HP)

Man Bahadur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-06-04

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
Judgment P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal filed against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge Fast Track Court Kullu HP in Sessions Trial No 11 of 2007 titled State Vs. Man Bahadur decided on 29th July, 2008. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 1.9.2006 at about 6.30. PM ASI Lal Chand along with Constable Om Prakash and Constable Mohinder Singh had proceeded from Police Station in Government vehicle driven by Constable Dinesh Kumar to Shiva Lodge in connection with verification of report No.30 recorded in the rojnamcha. It is alleged that Shiva Lodge is located near “Siyali Mahadev Market”. It is alleged that Anil Kumar elected Member of Naggar Panchayat met police party near Siyali Mahadev Inn and he was associated in raiding party. It is further alleged that at about 6.40 PM police party headed by ASI Lal Chand reached at reception counter of Shiva Lodge. It is further alleged that Bishamber Singh was found at reception counter and he was also associated with the raiding party. It is alleged that the door of room No.108 of Shiva Lodge was knocked. It is alleged that the door was opened by one Nepali national and second Nepali national was sitting on double bed. It is further alleged that the Nepali national who opened the door disclosed his name to be Man Bahadur and second Nepali national sitting on double bed disclosed his name to be Than Bahadur. It is alleged by prosecution that ASI Lal Chand told both the Nepali nationals that information had been received by the police to the effect that they might be in possession of Charas. It is alleged that both of them were apprised of their legal right to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer on which they consented to be searched by the police present at the spot and the consent memos were prepared in this connection. It is further alleged that 3Kg Charas and 800 grams opium was found from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused persons. 3. Accused persons were charged for the offence under Sections 20 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is further alleged that 3Kg Charas and 800 grams opium was found from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused persons. 3. Accused persons were charged for the offence under Sections 20 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Than Bahadur had absconded from the police custody during the trial and he was declared proclaimed offender in accordance with law. 4. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case:- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Hari Singh PW2 Bishamber Singh PW3 Mohinder Singh PW4 Lal Chand PW5 Ganga Ram PW6 Prem Prakash PW7 Rajiv Kumar PW8 Pinki PW9 Dole Ram PW10 Roop Singh 4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case: Sr.No. Description Ext.PA dt.29.2.2008 Copy of FIR Ext.PB Endorsement on rukka. Ext.PC Copy of extract of malkhana register Ext.PD Copy of RC Ext.PE Receipt on the reverse of RC Ext.PF NCB form Ext.PG dt.6.6.2008 Consent memo of accused Man Bahadur Ext.PH Consent memo of accused Than Bahadur Ext.PJ. Personal search memo of IO Ext.PK Sample of seal H Ext.PL Search and seizure memo Ext.PM Arrest memo Ext.PN Memo of recovery of extract of register of Shiva Lodge. Ext.PO Extract of Visitors Register of Shiva Lodge Ext.PP Copy of report No.30 Ext.PQ Rukka Ext.PR Site Plan Ext.PS Arrest memo of accused Than Bahadur Ext.PT Copy of special report Ext.PU Report of CFSL, Chandigarh Ext.PV dt.7.6.2008 Copy of report No.30 of rojnamcha Ext.PX Receipt on Ext.PV Ext.PY Copy of extract of special report register Ext.PZ Copy of RC Ext.PA/A 9.6.2008 Endorsement on special report Ext.PA/B Copy of extract of special report register Ext.PA/C Specimen of seal N Ext.PA/D dt.27.6.2008 Report of FSL Junga Ext DA dt.9.7.2008 Certified copy of judgment in ST No.14 of 2007. 5. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant Man Bahadur under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ and acquitted him under Section 18 of the ‘Act’. The learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ and learned trial court further direct that in default of payment of fine the appellant would suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ and learned trial court further direct that in default of payment of fine the appellant would suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The learned trial Court has further ordered that the period of detention undergone by the convict shall be set off as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court appellant filed the present appeal pleaded therein that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are illegal and based on conjecture and surmises. It is further pleaded that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is further pleaded that the impugned judgment is based on assumptions and presumptions. It is further pleaded that the sample was tampered. It is further pleaded that Constable Mohinder Singh had reached at CFSL Chandigarh on 4th October, 2006 but as per receipt Ext PE shows that he deposited the sample in laboratory on 6th October, 2006. It is further pleaded that link evidence in the present case is missing. It is further pleaded that the present appellant was not occupying Room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. It is pleaded that conviction of the appellant is based on the sole testimony of police witnesses. It is further pleaded that the prosecution has not examined independent witness Sh Suresh Kumar who was present at the spot. It is further pleaded that the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the ‘Act’ have not complied with. It is further pleaded that there is no evidence in the present case that from where the appellant was coming with the contraband and to where he was going to deliver the same. It is further pleaded that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that polythene bag was belonging to present appellant. It is further pleaded that NCB Form was not produced by the prosecution along with the original challan which is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further pleaded that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that polythene bag was belonging to present appellant. It is further pleaded that NCB Form was not produced by the prosecution along with the original challan which is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further pleaded that Investigating Officer has admitted in his statement that charas was found in the shape of chapaties but he did not disclose that how many said chapaties were in number and he has not stated before the trial Court that while taking sample he has taken contraband from each Chapati. It is further pleaded that it is not proved on record that alleged contraband was charas as a whole. A prayer for acceptance of appeal is sought for. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and have carefully perused the entire record. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in convicting the appellant Man Bahadur for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the ‘Act’. TESTIMONY OF ORAL WITNESS EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 HC Hari Singh has stated that he was posted as MHC at Police Station Manali w.e.f. August 2004 to June 2007. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 a rukka was received at Police Station Manali through Constable Mohinder Paul on the basis of which FIR Ext PA was registered. He has stated that his endorsement on rukka is Ext PB. He has further stated that on the same day SI Rup Singh had deposited two sealed parcels with him. He has stated that each parcel was having eight seal impressions of ‘N’ and eight seal impressions of ‘H’. He has stated that one sealed parcel was containing 2Kg and 950 grams of charas and second parcel was containing 750 grams opium. He has stated that two samples of charas and two samples of opium was also deposited with him by SI Rup Singh and each sample parcel was having four seal impressions of ‘N’ and four seal impressions of ‘H’. He has stated that two samples of charas and two samples of opium was also deposited with him by SI Rup Singh and each sample parcel was having four seal impressions of ‘N’ and four seal impressions of ‘H’. He has further stated that SI Rup Singh had also deposited with him NCB Form in triplicate seizure memo and samples of seals ‘N’ and ‘H’. He has stated that necessary entry was made by him in malkhana register. He has stated that extract of malkhana register Ext PC is correct as per original record. He has stated that on 3rd October, 2006 he filled column No.12 of NCB Form in triplicate. He has stated that the samples were sent to CFSL Chandigarh. He has further stated that on 3rd October, 2006 he had sent one sample of charas and one sample of opium along with NCB Form in triplicate seizure memo samples of seal impressions ‘N’ and ‘H’ and copy of FIR vide RC No.133/2006 through Constable Mohinder Pal with a direction to deposit the same at CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that aforesaid articles were not accepted at CFSL Chandigarh for the purpose of examination on the ground that necessary form of Chandigarh Laboratory was not sent along with these articles. He has further stated that on 5th October, 2006 Constable Mohinder Paul returned back to Police Station Manali along with articles. He has further stated that on the same day necessary form of CFSL Chandigarh was filled by him and aforesaid articles were sent to CFSL Chandigarh through Constable Mohinder Paul. He has stated that on 6th October, 2006 Constable Mohinder Paul deposited aforesaid articles at CFSL Chandigarh and receipt in this connection was obtained by him from laboratory. He has stated that receipt was handed over to him by Constable Mohinder Paul. He has stated that copy of RC Ext PD and copy of receipt Ext PE is correct as per original record. He has further stated that the case property was not tampered at any stage. He has stated that receipt was handed over to him by Constable Mohinder Paul. He has stated that copy of RC Ext PD and copy of receipt Ext PE is correct as per original record. He has further stated that the case property was not tampered at any stage. He has stated that samples of charas and opium could not be sent to CTL Kandaghat because instructions were not received from the authority concerned to the effect that samples be not sent to CTL Kandaghat as the samples were not being accepted in the said laboratory for the purpose of examination and as such samples were subsequently sent to CFSL Chandigarh. In cross-examination he has denied suggestion that he did not receive rukka at Police Station Manali for the registration of FIR. He has denied suggestion that samples were not deposited with him in the malkhana by SI Rup Singh. He has denied suggestion that samples of seal impressions ‘N’ and ‘H’ and relevant documents were not deposited with him. He has denied suggestion that endorsement on rukka and entries in malkhana register were fabricated by him. He has denied suggestion that samples did not sent by him to CFSL Chandigarh. He has denied suggestion that samples were not received back on 5th October, 2006 from CFSL Chandigarh with objections. He has denied suggestion that aforesaid RC and receipt were fabricated by him. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 9.1 PW2 Bishamber Singh has stated that Hotel Shiva Lodge has been leased to him by Daya Ram. He has stated that he is running the Lodge on lease basis for the last about three years. He has stated that Shiva Lodge is located near Siyali Mahadev market. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 accused present in Court had occupied room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that one more person was also occupying the same room. He has stated that on the same day police officials came to Shiva Lodge and checked the room of accused in his presence. He has stated that Pradhan of NAC Manali was also present in the room at the time of checking. He has stated that during the course of checking of room two or three envelopes were recovered beneath the pillow. He has further stated that these envelopes were containing charas. He has stated that Pradhan of NAC Manali was also present in the room at the time of checking. He has stated that during the course of checking of room two or three envelopes were recovered beneath the pillow. He has further stated that these envelopes were containing charas. He has stated that the recovered charas was weighed. He has stated that he does not remember the quantity of charas recovered from room. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. He has admitted suggestion that on 1.9.2006 ASI Lal Chand came to Shiva Lodge. He has admitted suggestion that Anil Kumar President NAC Manali was also present with ASI Lal Chand. He has admitted suggestion that ASI Lal Chand told him that police wanted to search room No. 108 of his Lodge. He has admitted suggestion that he along with ASI Lal Chand and witness Anil Kumar went to room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. He has admitted suggestion that door of room No.108 was knocked by ASI Lal Chand and that door was opened by the accused present in the Court room. He has admitted suggestion that accused Than Bahadur was sitting on the bed of the room. He has admitted suggestion that accused Man Bahadur and Than Bahadur were apprised about their rights to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or gazetted officer by ASI Lal Chand on which they consented to be searched by the police present at the spot. He has admitted suggestion that consent memos Ext PG and Ext PH were prepared by ASI Lal Chand in the presence of witnesses Anil Kumar and Om Parkash. He has stated that consent memo Ext PG bears his signature. He has admitted suggestion that ASI Lal Chand gave his personal search to accused Man Bahadur and Than Bahadur and memo Ext PJ was prepared which was signed by him. He has also admitted suggestion that during the course of search of the room two polythene envelopes were recovered by police which were kept near pillow on double bed. He has admitted suggestion that on the opening of one polythene envelope it was found containing charas and on the opening of second polythene envelope it was found containing opium. He has admitted suggestion that recovered charas was weighed and it was found to be 3Kg. He has admitted suggestion that on the opening of one polythene envelope it was found containing charas and on the opening of second polythene envelope it was found containing opium. He has admitted suggestion that recovered charas was weighed and it was found to be 3Kg. He has admitted suggestion that recovered opium was also weighed and it was found to be 800 grams. He has admitted suggestion that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. He has also admitted suggestion that remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has also admitted suggestion that four seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on each sample parcel and eight seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on bulk charas parcel. He has admitted suggestion that two samples of opium 25 grams each were separated from the recovered opium and were sealed in separate parcels. He has admitted suggestion that rest of opium was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has admitted suggestion that NCB Form in triplicate was filled at the spot by ASI Lal Chand. He has also admitted suggestion that search and seizure memo were prepared at the spot by ASI Lal Chand which was signed by him Anil Kumar Om Parkash Man Bahadur and Than Bahadur. He has admitted suggestion that seal after use was handed over to witness Anil Kumar. He has admitted suggestion that accused Man Bahadur was apprised about the commission of offence and memo Ext PM was prepared. He has stated that polythene envelope Ext.P2 and charas Ext P3 are the same which were recovered from the accused. He has stated that sample of parcel is Ext P4. He has stated that bulk parcel is Ext.P5. In cross examination he has stated that Shiva Lodge is three storeyed building. He has denied suggestion that memos were already prepared by ASI Lal Chand in his absence and the same were simply signed by him. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not recovered from accused Man Bahadur. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Man Bahadur was not occupant of room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge on 1.9.2006. He has denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not recovered from accused Man Bahadur. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Man Bahadur was not occupant of room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge on 1.9.2006. He has denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He has denied suggestion that unclaimed charas was recovered by the police from Shiva Lodge and accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He has denied suggestion that accused Man Bahadur was staying in room No. 105 of Shiva Lodge on 1.9.2006. He has denied suggestion that no charas and opium were recovered from the possession of the accused. He has denied suggestion that seal after use was not handed over to witness Anil Kumar. He has denied suggestion that accused Man Bahadur was not apprised about his right to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or gazetted officer by ASI Lal Chand. He has denied suggestion that an entry in visitor’s register was fabricated by him in connivance with police. He has denied suggestion that Shiva Lodge was not leased to him by Daya Ram. He has stated that lease agreement was executed between him and Daya Ram. He has denied suggestion that Anil Kumar was not with him. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused. 9.2 PW3 Constable Mohinder Singh has stated that he was posted as general duty Constable at Police Station Manali since June 2006. He has stated that on 1st September, 2006 he along with ASI Lal Chand and Constable Om Parkash proceeded to Shiva Lodge from Police Station Manali in government vehicle driven by Constable Dinesh Kumar in order to carry out search of room No.108 of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that at about 6.30 PM they reached near Siyali Mahadev market. He has stated that Anil Kumar witness met them. He has stated that Anil Kumar was associated as witness by ASI Lal Chand. He has stated that they went to Shiva Lodge Hotel at 6.40 PM. He has stated that Bishambar Manager of Shiva Lodge met them and Bishambar was also associated as witness in order to carry out search of room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. He has further stated that thereafter they reached in third floor of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that door of room No. 108 was knocked by ASI Lal Chand. He has stated that Bishambar Manager of Shiva Lodge met them and Bishambar was also associated as witness in order to carry out search of room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. He has further stated that thereafter they reached in third floor of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that door of room No. 108 was knocked by ASI Lal Chand. He has stated that one Nepali national opened door of room. He has stated that one other person Nepali was sitting on double bed lying in the room. He has further stated that Nepali national opened door of room and disclosed his name to be Man Bahadur and he was identified in the Court. He has stated that ASI Lal Chand told accused Man Bahadur and Than Bahadur in the presence of witnesses whether they wanted to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or gazetted Officer on which they consented to be searched by the police present at the spot. He has stated that consent memo of co-accused Man Bahadur Ext PG and consent memo of co-accused Than Bahadur Ext. PH were prepared which were signed by co-accused Man Bahadur and co-accused Than Bahadur respectively. He has stated that a consent memo was signed by witnesses Anil Kumar, Bishambar Dass and Om Parkash. He has stated that ASI Lal Chand gave his personal search to accused persons Man Bahadur and Than Bahadur. He has stated that thereafter room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge was checked and searched by ASI Lal Chand in the presence of witnesses. He has stated that during the search of room two polythene envelopes were found kept beneath the bed sheet. He has stated that the polythene envelopes were checked and one polythene envelope was found containing charas in the shape of Chapatis and second polythene envelope was found containing opium. He has stated that recovered charas was weighed at the spot and it was found 3Kg . He has stated that recovered opium was weighed and it was found 800 grams. He has stated that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. He has stated that remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that recovered opium was weighed and it was found 800 grams. He has stated that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. He has stated that remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that four seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on each sample parcel and eight seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on bulk parcel. He has further stated that thereafter two samples of opium 25 grams each were separated from recovered opium and were sealed in separate parcels and remaining opium was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that four seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on each sample parcel and eight seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on bulk parcel. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Anil Kumar and thereafter rukka was prepared at the spot by ASI Lal Chand which was handed over to him at the spot. He has stated that he went to Police Station Manali and handed over the rukka to MHC Hari Singh on which FIR was registered. He has stated that he handed over case file to ASI Lal Chand at the spot. He has stated that bulk parcel of charas Ext P1, polythene envelope Ext.P2 charas Ext.P3 and sample parcel Ext P4 were recovered from the accused. He has further stated that on 3rd October 2006 MHC Hari Singh handed over to him one sealed sample of charas and one sealed sample of opium, NCB Form in triplicate, copy of FIR, seizure memo samples of seal impression ‘H’ and ‘N’ and other connected documents with a direction to deposit the same at CFSL Chandigarh vide RC No. 133/2006. He has stated that he took aforesaid articles to CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that the samples were not accepted for the purpose of examination and thereafter he returned back to Police Station Manali alongwith aforesaid articles. He has further stated that he had reached back at Police Station Manali on 5th October, 2006 and after removal of objection he again took aforesaid articles to CFSL Chandigarh and deposited the same in the laboratory in intact condition. He has further stated that he had reached back at Police Station Manali on 5th October, 2006 and after removal of objection he again took aforesaid articles to CFSL Chandigarh and deposited the same in the laboratory in intact condition. He has further stated that he obtained receipt from laboratory and handed over the same to MHC Hari Singh at Police Station Manali. He has stated that case property remained intact in his custody and the same was not tampered. In cross examination he has stated that verbal objections were raised by CFSL Chandigarh. He has denied suggestion that consent memos Ext PG and Ext PH were fabricated by the police. He has denied suggestion that ASI Lal Chand did not hand over rukka to him at the spot. He has denied suggestion that accused was not present inside room No. 108 at the time of recovery of charas and opium. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not recovered from the accused. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not weighed at the spot. He has denied suggestion that samples were not prepared at the spot. He has denied suggestion that seal was not handed over to witness Anil Kumar. He has denied suggestion that he did not take rukka to Police Station Manali for registration of FIR and he has also denied suggestion that he did not take samples to CFSL Chandigarh for the purpose of examination. He has denied suggestion that Anil Kumar and Bishambar Dass were not present in room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge at the relevant time. He has denied suggestion that memos were prepared at Police Station Manali in order to implicate accused falsely in the present case. He has denied suggestion that accused Man Bahadur was staying in room No. 105 of Shiva Lodge. He has also denied suggestion that unclaimed charas was found at Shiva Lodge by police. He has denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. 9.3 PW4 Lal Chand has stated that he was posted as ASI/IO at Police Station Manali w.e.f. January 2005 to August 2007. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 at about 6 PM information was received by him at Police Station Manali to the effect that occupants of room No. 106, 108 and 109 of Shiva Lodge were indulging in narcotic deal. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 at about 6 PM information was received by him at Police Station Manali to the effect that occupants of room No. 106, 108 and 109 of Shiva Lodge were indulging in narcotic deal. He has further stated that information was reduced into writing in the rojnamcha. He has further stated that it was suspected that in case search was not carried out immediately contraband might be destroyed or concealed. He has further stated that thereafter immediately a raiding party was constituted by Mohinder Pal and Om Parkash. He has stated that second raiding party was also constituted comprising HC Naresh Chand, Constable Nikka Ram and Constable Raj Kumar. He has stated that third party was also constituted comprising HC Mohan Lal, Constable Megh Singh and LC Som Lata. He has stated that in order to comply provisions of Section 42 of the ‘Act’, copy of report Ext PP was sent to Dy.SP Manali through Constable Prem Parkash. He has stated that he along with Constable Om Parkash and Constable Mohinder Pal proceeded to Shiva Lodge from Police Station Manali in government vehicle. He has stated that at about 6.30 PM they reached at reception counter of Shiva Lodge where Bishamber was found present at reception counter of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that he was also associated as witness. He has stated that thereafter he along with witnesses went to room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. He has stated that door of the room was knocked by him and one Nepali national opened the door of the room and disclosed his name as Man Bahadur. He identified co-accused Man Bahadur in the Court. He has stated that second Nepali national was sitting on double bed lying in the room and he disclosed his name as Than Bahadur. He has stated that he told both the accused persons that he suspected that both accused might be in possession of contraband. He has stated that he apprised both the accused persons about their legal right to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or gazetted Officer on which they consented to be searched by the police officials present at the spot. He has stated that consent memos Ext PH and Ext PG were prepared. He has stated that consent memo Ext PH was signed by co-accused Than Bahadur and witnesses Anil Kumar, Bishamber and Om Parkash. He has stated that consent memos Ext PH and Ext PG were prepared. He has stated that consent memo Ext PH was signed by co-accused Than Bahadur and witnesses Anil Kumar, Bishamber and Om Parkash. He has stated that consent memo Ext.PG was signed by co-accused Man Bahadur and witnesses Anil Kumar, Bishamber and Om Parkash. He has stated that he gave his personal search to accused persons and memo Ext PJ was prepared in this connection which was signed by Than Bahadur, Man Bahadur, Anil Kumar and Om Parkash. He has stated that room No.108 of Shiva Lodge was subjected to search by him in the presence of witnesses. He has stated that during the course of search of room, two polythene envelope were recovered which were kept beneath the pillow. He has further stated that on the checking of one polythene envelope it was found containing charas in the shape of Chapatis and on checking of second polythene envelope it was found containing opium. He has stated that recovered charas was weighed and it was found to be 3 Kg. He has further stated that recovered opium was weighed at the spot and it was found to be 800 grams. He has further stated that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels and remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that four seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on each sample parcel and eight seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on bulk parcel. He has stated that two samples of opium 25 grams each were separated from the recovered opium and were sealed in separate parcels and remaining opium was put in the same polythene envelope which was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that four seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on each sample parcel and eight seal impressions of ‘H’ were affixed on bulk opium parcel. He has stated that NCB Form in triplicate was filled at the spot. He has further stated that samples of seal impressions ‘H’ were obtained separately and one sample is Ext PK. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Anil Kumar. He has stated that NCB Form in triplicate was filled at the spot. He has further stated that samples of seal impressions ‘H’ were obtained separately and one sample is Ext PK. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Anil Kumar. He has further stated that search and seizure memo were prepared at the spot which was signed by Man Bahadur, Than Bahadur Anil Kumar Bishamber and Om Parkash. He has stated that rukka Ext PQ was prepared at the spot by him and sent to Police Station Manali for registration of FIR against the accused through Constable Mohinder Pal. He has further stated that site plan Ext PR was prepared at the spot by him. He has stated that arrest memo was signed by witnesses Anil Kumar, Bishamber and Om Parkash. He has stated that statements of witnesses were also recorded by him. He has stated that he entered FIR number on various memos. He has stated that he produced case property before SI/SHO Roop Singh at Police Station Manali and SHO re-sealed the case property. He has stated that he had resealed aforesaid sealed parcels by affixing four seal impressions ‘N’ on sample parcels and eight seal impressions of ‘N’ on bulk parcels. He has stated that SHO Rup Singh had also filled NCB Form in triplicate. He has stated that thereafter case property was deposited with MHC at Police Station Manali by SHO Rup Singh. He has further stated that on 2.9.2006 he prepared special report Ext PT and handed over the same to Dy SP Manali. He has stated that extract of visitors register of Shiva Lodge Ext PO was also taken into possession by him from witness Bishamber vide memo Ext PN. He has further stated that bulk parcel of charas Ext P1, polythene envelope Ext P2 and Charas Ext P3 are the same recovered from the accused. He has further stated that sample parcel of charas Ext.P4 bulk parcel of opium Ext P5 and sample parcel Ext P6 are the same. He has stated that report was received from Director CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that after completion of investigation he handed over the case file to SHO Rup Singh. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not visit Shiva Lodge. He has stated that report was received from Director CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that after completion of investigation he handed over the case file to SHO Rup Singh. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not visit Shiva Lodge. He denied suggestion that co-accused Man Bahadur was not present in room No.108 during the course of search of said room. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not recovered from co-accused Man Bahadur. He has denied suggestion that unclaimed charas was recovered from Shiva Lodge and he has also denied suggestion that accused person falsely implicated in the present case. He has also denied suggestion that report No.30 were fabricated by the police. He has also denied suggestion that copy of report No.30 was not sent to Dy SP Manali. He has denied suggestion that witnesses Anil Kumar and Bishamber were not associated in the present case by him. He has denied suggestion that consent memos Ext PH and Ext PG were fabricated by police. He has denied suggestion that charas and opium were not weighed at the spot and was not sealed in accordance with law. He has denied suggestion that NCB Form in triplicate was also fabricated by the police. He has denied suggestion that samples of seal impressions ‘H’ and ‘N’ were fabricated by the police. He has denied suggestion that rukka was not sent from the spot to Police Station Manali. He has denied suggestion that site plan was falsely prepared by him at Police Station Manali. He has denied suggestion that arrest memo was fabricated by the police. He has denied suggestion that statements of witnesses were recorded by him at his own volition. He has denied suggestion that case property was not resealed by SHO Rup Singh. He has denied suggestion that he did not prepare special report. He has also denied suggestion that extract of visitors register was fabricated by the Police and he has denied suggestion that co-accused Man Bahadur was staying in room No.105 of Shiva Lodge on the said date. 9.4 PW5 HHC Ganga Ram has brought rojnamcha of Police Station Manali. He has stated that copy of report No.30 Ext PP is correct as per the original record. He has stated that copy of report No.30 was also sent to Dy SP Manali through Constable Prem Parkash on 1.9.2006. 9.4 PW5 HHC Ganga Ram has brought rojnamcha of Police Station Manali. He has stated that copy of report No.30 Ext PP is correct as per the original record. He has stated that copy of report No.30 was also sent to Dy SP Manali through Constable Prem Parkash on 1.9.2006. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that report No. 30 was fabricated by the Police. He has denied suggestion that copy of the report was not sent to Dy SP Manali. 9.5 PW6 Constable Prem Parkash has stated that he was posted as general duty constable at Police Station, Manali w.e.f 2004 to 2006. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 copy of report No.30 recorded in the roznamcha was handed over to him by ASI Lal Chand at 6.05 PM. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not take copy of report to the office of Dy SP Manali. 9.6 PW7 Rajiv Kumar has stated that he was posted as Assistant Reader to Dy SP Manali w.e.f December 2000 to June 2007. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 Sh KC Rana Dy SP Manali had handed over information received by him under Section 42 of the ‘Act’ to him. He has stated that necessary entry was made by him in the register. He has stated that copy of information Ext PV is correct as per the original record and necessary endorsement of Sh KC Rana Dy SP is Ext PX. He has stated that abstract of register is Ext PY which is correct as per the record. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that aforesaid information was not received by Dy SP Manali. He has denied suggestion that entry in the register has been fabricated by him. 9.7 PW8 Pinki has stated that on 24.9.2006 he was performing the duty of MHC at Police Station Manali. He has stated that on the said date MHC Hari Singh was on leave and as such he was holding the charge of MHC at Police Station Manali. 9.7 PW8 Pinki has stated that on 24.9.2006 he was performing the duty of MHC at Police Station Manali. He has stated that on the said date MHC Hari Singh was on leave and as such he was holding the charge of MHC at Police Station Manali. He has stated that on the same day he handed over one sealed sample parcel containing charas 25 grams and one sealed sample parcel containing 25 grams of opium and seizure memo and NCB form in triplicate and samples of seal impressions ‘H’ and ‘N’ and connected documents were handed over to constable Mahinder Singh with a direction to deposit the same at CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that the aforesaid articles were taken to CFSL Chandigarh by Constable Mohinder Pal. He has stated that sample was not accepted at CFSL Chandigarh for examination and such sample along with aforesaid articles were brought back to Manali by Constable Mohinder Pal. He has further stated that aforesaid samples were sent back by CFSL Chandigarh with verbal objection. He has stated that aforesaid articles were deposited back in the malkhana by him. He has further stated that copy of road certificate Ext PZ is correct as per the original record. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not hand over samples to Constable Mohinder Pal. He has denied suggestion that samples were tampered. He has denied suggestion that he did not deposit aforesaid articles back in the malkhana. He has denied suggestion that road certificate has been fabricated by the Police. 9.8 PW9 Dola Ram has stated that on 2.9.2006 special report Ext PT was received by Sh KC Rana Dy SP Manali. He has stated that he appended his endorsement on Ext PA/A and handed over the same to him. He has stated that necessary entry was made by him in the register and abstract register Ext PA/B is correct as per the original record. He has stated that he was posted as Reader to Dy SP Manali. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that special report Ext PT was not received by Sh KC Rana Dy SP Manali. He has denied suggestion that entry in the register has been fabricated. 9.9 PW10 Roop Singh has stated that he was posted as SI/SHO at Police Station Manali w.e.f October 2002 to March 2007. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that special report Ext PT was not received by Sh KC Rana Dy SP Manali. He has denied suggestion that entry in the register has been fabricated. 9.9 PW10 Roop Singh has stated that he was posted as SI/SHO at Police Station Manali w.e.f October 2002 to March 2007. He has stated that on 1.9.2006 ASI Lal Chand Police Station Manali had produced four sealed parcels before him. He has stated that one sealed sample parcel was containing 25 grams of charas and second sealed sample parcel was containing 25 grams of opium. He has stated that both these sample parcels were bearing four seal impressions of seal ‘H’ on each parcel. He has stated that one bulk parcel containing charas and another bulk parcel containing opium was also produced with seal. He has stated that ASI Lal Chand had handed over to him samples of seal impressions ‘H’ and NCB form in triplicate to him. He has stated that he resealed aforesaid four sealed samples of charas and opium by affixing four seal impressions of seal ‘N’ on each parcel. He has also stated that he had also filled columns No.9 to 11 of NCB form in triplicate. He has stated that thereafter he deposited aforesaid sealed parcels, samples of seal impressions ‘H’ and ‘N’, NCB form in triplicate with MHC Hari Singh at Police Station Manali. He has stated that report of CFSL Chandigarh Ext PU was obtained. He has stated that after completion of investigation he prepared challan and presented the same in the Court. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that sealed parcels were not produced before him for the purpose of resealing by ASI Lal Chand. He has denied suggestion that samples of seal impressions ‘H’ and NCB form in triplicate were not handed over to him by ASI Lal Chand. He has denied suggestion that he did not reseal case property. He has denied suggestion that he did not deposit aforesaid articles with MHC Hari Singh. He has denied suggestion that case property was tampered. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused. 10. Statement of co-accused Man Bahadur was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he is innocent and contraband was not recovered from him. He has denied suggestion that case property was tampered. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused. 10. Statement of co-accused Man Bahadur was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he is innocent and contraband was not recovered from him. He has stated that he was staying in room No.105 of Shiva Lodge and he was arrested in the present case on the basis of suspicion. The accused tender copy of judgment Ext. DA in defence evidence and closed the evidence. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that judgment passed by learned trial Court is based upon conjectures and surmises is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Eye witnesses examined by prosecution: 11.1 PW2 Bishamber Singh, PW3 Constable Mohinder Singh and PW4 ASI Lal Chand have stated in positive manner that 3Kg of charas and 800 grams opium were recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused in their presence. The testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 qua recovery of contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant-accused. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that eye witness namely PW2 Bishambar Singh, PW3 Mohinder Singh and PW4 Lal Chand have hostile animus against the appellant-accused at any point of time. Corroborative Oral evidence examined by Prosecution: 11.2. In the present case PW1 Hari Singh PW5 Ganga Ram PW6 Prem Prakash PW7 Rajiv Kumar PW8 Pinki PW9 Dole Ram and PW10 Roop Singh are link witnesses of the present case. PW1 has specifically stated that on the basis of rukka FIR was registered and he has stated that samples of charas and opium were deposited along with NCB Form in triplicate, seizure memo, sample of seal and he has stated that he filled column No.12 of NCB Form. He has stated in positive manner that thereafter he sent the contraband to CFSL Chandigarh for chemical examination along with sample of charas, sample of opium, NCB Form in triplicate, sample of seal impression ‘H’ and copy of FIR vide RC No. 133/06. The testimony of PW1 further corroborated by another witness PW5 HHC Ganga Ram. He has stated in positive manner that thereafter he sent the contraband to CFSL Chandigarh for chemical examination along with sample of charas, sample of opium, NCB Form in triplicate, sample of seal impression ‘H’ and copy of FIR vide RC No. 133/06. The testimony of PW1 further corroborated by another witness PW5 HHC Ganga Ram. He has stated that special report under Section 42 of the ‘Act’ was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali through Constable Prem Parkash. The testimony of PW1 further corroborated by PW6. He has stated that he took the special report under Section 42 of the ‘Act’ and handed over the same to Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali. The testimony further corroborated by PW7 who was posted as Reader to Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali and he has stated that special report under Section 42 of the ‘Act’ was received in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali and he handed over the report to Dy SP. The testimony further corroborated by link witness PW8 LC Pinki who has stated that oral objection was raised by CFSL department and thereafter he again after removal of objection visited CFSL office and deposited sealed parcels of charas and opium, seizure memo, NCB Form, sample of seal in the office of CFSL Chandigarh. The testimony of corroborative witnesses are also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of corroborative witness adduced by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that oral corroborative witnesses adduced by the prosecution have hostile animus against the appellant accused at any point of time. Documentary evidence produced by prosecution: 11.3 Even the testimony of independent eye witness and the testimony of corroborative link witnesses also corroborated by the documentary evidence i.e. Ext PA to Ext PZ and Ext PA/A to Ext PA/D placed on the record. The documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution also supported the testimony of oral witness and the testimony of corroborative witnesses. 12. Submission of learned counsel that Constable Mohinder Singh had reached at CFSL Chandigarh on 4th October 2006 but receipt Ext PE shows that sample was deposited in the laboratory on 6th October 2006 and same fact is fatal to prosecution is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter. 12. Submission of learned counsel that Constable Mohinder Singh had reached at CFSL Chandigarh on 4th October 2006 but receipt Ext PE shows that sample was deposited in the laboratory on 6th October 2006 and same fact is fatal to prosecution is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter. PW3 Mohinder Singh has stated in positive manner that on 3rd October 2006 MHC Hari Singh had handed over to him one sealed parcel of charas and one sealed parcel of opium, NCB Form in triplicate, copy of FIR, seizure memo, samples of each impression ‘H’ and ‘N’ and other connected documents with a direction to deposit the same at CFSL Chandigarh vide RC No. 133/2006. He has stated that he took the aforesaid articles to CFSL Chandigarh and he has stated that samples were not accepted for the purpose of examination and oral objections were raised and thereafter he returned back to Police Station Manali along with aforesaid articles. He has stated that he reached back at Police Station Manali on 5th October 2006. He has further stated that after removal of oral objections he again took aforesaid articles to CFSL Chandigarh and deposited the same in the laboratory in intact condition. He has stated in positive manner that he obtained the receipt from laboratory and handed over the same to MHC Hari Singh at Police Station Manali. He has stated in positive manner that case property remained intact in his custody and the same was not tampered. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3. It is well settled law that evidence of witness should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. After careful perusal of the oral testimony of PW3 it is proved on record that after removal of oral objection samples were deposited in the laboratory on 6th October 2006. 13. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the presence of appellant was not proved in room No. 108 where the contraband was recovered and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Eye witness PW2 PW3 and PW4 have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant-accused from room No. 108. Eye witness PW2 PW3 and PW4 have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant-accused from room No. 108. Appellant accused did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4. The testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 that contraband was recovered from room No. 108 remained un-rebutted on record. 14. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that PW2 has not supported the prosecution case is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW2 who was cross examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination PW2 has supported the case of the prosecution in toto. It is well settled law that testimony of hostile witness can be considered by the Court which is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. Hence it is held that even PW2 independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution when he was cross-examined by the prosecution. 15. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that prosecution did not examine independent witness Sh. Suresh Kumar who was present at the spot and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that the appellant-accused was at liberty to examine Sh Suresh Kumar in his defence evidence but appellant accused did not examine Sh Suresh Kumar. It is well settled law that conviction can be sustained on the testimony of sole eye witness in a criminal case if the testimony of the sole eye witness is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court (See: AIR 1973 S.C. 944 Jose Vs. The State of Kerla and AIR 1965 S.C. 202 Masalti and others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1328 Dalbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the fact as they proved in a particular case. 16. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the fact as they proved in a particular case. 16. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that compliance of Section 42 of the ‘Act’ was not effected and on the basis of this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW4 ASI Lal Chand has specifically stated in positive manner that special report was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police. The testimony of PW4 corroborated by PW5 Ganga Ram who has also stated that copy of special report was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police and the testimony of PW4 further corroborated by PW6 Constable Prem Parkash who has stated that he took the special report in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali. The testimony of PW4 further corroborated by PW7 constable Rajiv Kumar who stated in positive manner that special report was received and the same was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Manali. Hence it is held that compliance under Section 42 of the ‘Act’ proved in the present case. 17. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that compliance of Section 50 of the ‘Act’ was not conducted in the present case and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record by way of testimony of eye witness namely PW2 PW3 and PW4 that 3Kg of charas recovered from the envelope which were kept beneath the pillow of bed. It is well settled law that compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the ‘Act’ is essential only when the contraband is recovered from the possession of the accused. In the present case contraband was not recovered from the possession of the accused but the contraband was kept in an envelope under the pillow of the bed situated in room No. 108. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 1384 State of Rajasthan Vs. In the present case contraband was not recovered from the possession of the accused but the contraband was kept in an envelope under the pillow of the bed situated in room No. 108. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 1384 State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another that if the contraband was not recovered from the person of the accused then compliance of Section 50 of the ‘Act’ is not essential (See: AIR 2007 S.C.369 Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. See: AIR 2005 S.C. 2265 State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar See: AIR 2000 S.C.402 Kalema Tumba Vs. State of Maharashtra and another See: AIR 1999 S.C.2378 State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh etc. and See: AIR 1996 S.C.977 State of H.P. Vs. Sh.Pirthi Chand and another and See: AIR 1994 S.C.1872 State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh. 18. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not occupying room No. 108 of the Shiva Lodge and there is no evidence that how the appellant came at Shiva Lodge and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW2 PW3 and PW4 have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from the possession of appellant-accused in their presence in room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. Appellant did not examine any official of the Shiva Lodge in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 to prove that he was not present in room No. 108 at time of recovery. However the presence of appellant in room No.108 at time of recovery of charas is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 which inspire confidence of the Court. In the absence of rebuttal of the testimony it is expedient in the ends of justice to rely upon the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 who are the eye witnesses of the incident qua recovery of the contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. 19. In the absence of rebuttal of the testimony it is expedient in the ends of justice to rely upon the testimony of PW2 PW3 and PW4 who are the eye witnesses of the incident qua recovery of the contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. 19. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt by way of oral and documentary evidence that polythene bag was belonging to the present appellant and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The presence of the appellant is proved in room No. 108 of Shiva Lodge. There is no evidence on record to prove that appellant was not present in room No. 108 at the time of recovery of contraband and no reason has been assigned by the appellant as to why he was present in room No.108 at the time of recovery of contraband. 20. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that NCB Form was not produced by the prosecution along with original challan and on this ground appeal filed by the appellant be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case PW1 Hari Singh has stated in positive manner that NCB Form in triplicate was deposited. PW2 PW3 and PW4 have also stated that NCB Form in triplicate was prepared. In view of the above stated facts it is held that the oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution proved on record that NCB Form was prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that NCB Form was not prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer. Hence it is held that preparation of NCB Form is proved on record by way of testimony of above stated oral witnesses. The testimony of above stated witness qua preparation of NCB Form is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of above stated witness qua preparation of NCB Form by the Investigating Officer. The testimony of above stated witness qua preparation of NCB Form is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of above stated witness qua preparation of NCB Form by the Investigating Officer. Hence non mentioned of NCB Form at the time of filling of challan is not fatal to the prosecution case because preparation of NCB Form is proved on record by way of oral testimony of the witness in a positive cogent and reliable manner. 21. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as per prosecution story the charas was found in the shape of Chapati but the Investigating Officer had not disclosed that how many chapaties were in number and the Investigating Officer did not take the contraband from each Chapati and it is not proved on record that contraband as a whole was charas and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that charas and opium were recovered from two envelopes and samples of 25 grams each were took out for chemical examination and sample of charas and opium was sent to CFSL Chandigarh and as per the report of CFSL Chandigarh, Ext P1 was a sample of charas, Ext P2 was not a sample of opium and Ext P2 was a sample of cannabis. The accused was not charged for the possession of cannabis and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 18 of the ‘Act’ keeping in view the aforesaid report submitted by CFSL Chandigarh. 22. In view of the above stated facts the court below in our considered view has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of learned trial Court is perverse, illegal and erroneous or based upon incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 23. Accordingly we hold that the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court did not warrant any interference and we confirm the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. Appeal stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.