Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 943 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Kehar Singh

2014-07-21

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 26.6.2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 16-S/7 of 2001 whereby the accused/respondent (hereafter referred to as the “accused” for the sake of convenience), who was charged with and tried for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience), was acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 19.2.2001 PW10 ASI Sukhdarshan, Constable Kishore Chand and PW2 Phool Singh were on patrolling duty at Baddi Chowk, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.. They were checking the vehicles. At about 2.00 A.M., a bus bearing registration No.HP-01-1662 came from Manali. It was going to Delhi. The passengers travelling in the bus were checked. The accused was sitting on seat No.28. He disclosed his name to be Kehar Singh. A bag was found in his possession. The bag was checked in the presence of witnesses PW1 Devi Singh and PW5 Balbir Singh, driver and conductor of the bus. It was found containing charas. Constable Krishan Kumar was sent to bring weights and scale. The charas weighed one kg. Two samples of five grams of charas each were drawn. The samples were put in the match boxes and sealed in separate parcels with seal impression “I”. Remaining charas was sealed in a separate parcel with seal impression “I”. Seal impression was separately taken on a piece of cloth vide memo, Ext.PW1/A. Sample of the charas along with NCB forms was sent to CFL Kandaghat for chemical analysis. Special report, Ext.PW6/B was sent to the S.P. Solan. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court acquitted the accused under Section 20 of the Act vide judgment dated 26.6.2002, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 26.6.2002. 6. Learned trial court acquitted the accused under Section 20 of the Act vide judgment dated 26.6.2002, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 26.6.2002. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 7. PW1 Devi Singh deposed that on 18.2.2001, he was approaching from Manali to Delhi. The conductor of the bus was Balbir Singh. At about 2.00 A.M., he reached at Baddi. The police had laid a nakka. The bus was checked. Two persons were caught. Charas was found in their possession. Bag was brought by the police officials. There was only one bag. He could not identify the accused. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he could not state that the accused was caught by the police officials. He denied that 1 kg charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He admitted that memos, Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B, Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW1/D were bearing his signatures. When he signed, only two papers were written and memos, Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B were already written. His signatures were obtained on memos, Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW1/D on blank papers. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that the bus was checked at several places from Manali to Baddi. All the passengers boarded down from the bus when the bus was stopped at Baddi. Two persons were sitting on seat Nos. 1 and 2 of the bus and they also boarded down from the bus. When passengers of the bus boarded down, two police officials went inside the bus and brought one black colour bag. The police official who went inside the bus did not give his search to any body. Police officials informed him that a black coloured bag was recovered from seat No.28 of the bus. He admitted that only one bag was recovered at the time of the incident. 8. PW2, Phool Chand, also deposed the manner in which the bus was checked and the charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He also deposed the manner in which sampling and sealing process was completed. He took ruqua, Ext.PW2/A to the Police Station. He admitted that only one bag was recovered at the time of the incident. 8. PW2, Phool Chand, also deposed the manner in which the bus was checked and the charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He also deposed the manner in which sampling and sealing process was completed. He took ruqua, Ext.PW2/A to the Police Station. 9. PW3, HC Banwari Lal, deposed that on 19.2.2001, three parcels were handed over to him vide RC No.88/2001. Special report was also handed over to him. He handed over the special report in the office of S.P. Solan on 19.2.2001. He also deposited the parcels at CTL Kandaghat on 20.2.2001. 10. PW4, HC Neelam Kumar, deposed that on 19.2.2001, samples and bulk charas were deposited in Police Station. He sent the samples to CTL Kandaghat through MHC Banwari Lal. The parcels were deposited in the CTL Kandaghat same day and the receipt thereof was returned to him. 11. PW5, Balbir Singh, deposed that when the bus reached at Baddi Chowk, Nalagarh, it was checked by the police. All passengers were boarded down from the bus. One bag was brought by the police from the bus. No passengers claimed ownership of the bag. The accused was in possession of money and on suspicion, he was arrested by the police. The bus was taken to Police Station. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. He could not say what was recovered from the bag. The accused was sitting on front seat of the bus. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that the accused was traveling on seat No.28 of the bus. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that his and driver’s signatures were obtained by the police on blank papers in the Police Station. Statements of the passengers were not recorded by the police. 12. PW6, Yogender Kumar and PW7 Vijay Kumar are formal witnesses. 13. PW8, Taranjit Singh, deposed that he prepared the site plan, Ext.PW8/A. He recorded statements of Balbir Singh and Devi Singh vide Ext.PW8/B and Ext.PW8/C respectively. He also received the chemical examiner’s report, Ext.PW7/A. 14. PW9, Salim Ahamad, deposed that on 19.2.2001, Constable Phool Singh brought the ruqua to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW9/A was registered. 15. He also received the chemical examiner’s report, Ext.PW7/A. 14. PW9, Salim Ahamad, deposed that on 19.2.2001, Constable Phool Singh brought the ruqua to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW9/A was registered. 15. PW10, Sukh Darshan, Investigating Officer, deposed the manner in which the bus was stopped and the charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. He also deposed the manner in which sampling and sealing process was completed. He prepared ruqua, Ext.PW2/A and sent the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR. In cross-examination, he deposed that all the proceedings were completed within two hours. Only bag, Ext.P1 was searched. When the bag was searched some passengers had boarded down the bus and some passengers were in the bus. Personal search of the passengers was conducted prior to search of the accused. 16. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by the independent witnesses, namely, PW1 Devi Singh and PW5 Balbir Singh. PW1 Devi Singh denied the suggestion that the charas was recovered from the possession of the accused. According to him, when he signed, only two papers were written and memos, Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B were already written. His signatures were obtained on memos, Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW1/D on blank papers. He also deposed that the bus was checked at several places from Manali to Baddi. According to PW5 Balbir Singh, one bag was brought by the police from the bus. However, no passengers claimed ownership of the bag. Since the accused was in possession of some money, on suspicion, he was arrested by the police. He further deposed that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He even could not say what was recovered from the bag. According to him, the accused was sitting on front seat of the bus. He denied the suggestion that the accused was travelling on seat No.28 of the bus. Statements of the passengers were not recorded by the police. PW10, Sukh Darshan, Investigating Officer, deposed that he prepared ruqua, Ext.PW2/A and sent the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR. In cross-examination, he deposed that all the proceedings were completed within two hours. According to him, only bag, Ext.P1 was searched. When the bag was searched some passengers had got down the bus and some were in the bus. 17. In cross-examination, he deposed that all the proceedings were completed within two hours. According to him, only bag, Ext.P1 was searched. When the bag was searched some passengers had got down the bus and some were in the bus. 17. The police has not associated any of the passengers travelling in the bus at the time of search and seizure of the charas. The prosecution has failed to prove that the contraband was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. It is reiterated that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. We find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 18. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.