Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1943 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Puran Chand

2015-12-21

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 20.4.2015 rendered by learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-II), Shimla, HP in Sessions Trial No. 31-S/7 of 2014, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake) has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 4.3.2013 at 12.00 noon, at Mashobra Bifurcation, Dhalli, police party headed by ASI Ajeet Singh (PW-8) alongwith police officials LHC Sarita, C. Govind Singh PW-3, C. Manoj Kumar PW-9, HHG Sansar Chand was on patrolling duty. At about 12.00 noon, when police party was present at Mashobra Bifurcation, one person was seen coming from Mashobra side. He tried to run away. He was nabbed. He disclosed his name. He was carrying a Khaki bag in his right hand. Black coloured substance was recovered from poly pack which was found to be charas. It weighed 248 grams. Recovered charas was kept in poly pack and put in a sealed parcel sealed with seal impression ‘K’ (three in number) Rukka Ext PW-3/A was prepared. FIR No. 32/13 was registered. Case property was resealed with three seal impressions of ‘P’. Resealing certificate Ext PW-10/D was prepared. NCB form in triplicate was filled in. Columns No. 9 to 11 were filled up by SHO/Inspector Madan Lal PW-10. Case property was deposed with MHC Police Station Dhalli vide entry No. 677. Abstract of Malkhana register is Ext PW-7/A. Case property was sent for chemical examination to FSL Junga. Chemical examination report is Ext PW-8/F. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the prosecution. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Ranjeet testified that on 4.3.2013, he was called by police. One person was made to sit by the police. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Ranjeet testified that on 4.3.2013, he was called by police. One person was made to sit by the police. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He testified that there were 3-4 shops situate at Dhalli bifurcation. 7. PW-2 Manoj Kumar deposed that he was working at Green Tax Barrier Dhalli bifurcation. In the year 2013, nothing had happened in his presence. He was also declared hostile. 8. PW-3 Govind Singh deposed that at 12.00 noon, one person carrying a carry bag came at Dhalli Bifurcation. On checking of bag, another poly pack was recovered. It contained stick and ball shaped black substance. It was found to be charas. It weighed 248 grams. Charas was kept in poly pack and carry bag and taken into possession in a sealed packet sealed with seal impression ‘K’ five in number. He handed over rukka to MHC police station Dhalli. 9. PW-8 Ajeet Singh has deposed the mode and manner in which investigation was conducted by him. Constable Manoj Kumar PW-9, deposed that on 15.3.2013 he had gone to FSL Junga in connection with official work. He was handed over FSL report alongwith one sealed packet containing charas bearing five seal impressions ‘P’ and FSL each in case FIR No. 32 of 2013. 10. PW-10 Inspector Madan Lal deposed that on 4.3.2013, constable Govind Singh produced one Rukka before him. On the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, case property i.e. one sealed parcel bearing 5 seal impressions of ‘K’ alongwith NCB form was produced before him. He resealed the same by putting three seal impressions of ‘P’. He also filled in columns No. 9 to 11 of NCB form Ext. PW-10/C. He issued reseal certificate vide Ext. PW-10/D. Case property was handed over to MHC Om Parkash. 11. Case of the prosecution has not been supported by the independent witnesses PW-1 Ranjeet and PW-2 Manoj Kumar. They were declared hostile. PW-1 Ranjeet has admitted in his cross-examination that 3-4 shops were situated at Dhalli Bifurcation. According to PW-3 Govind Singh, police remained on the spot for a period of 1 ½ hours. However, PW-8 Ajeet Singh deposed that they remained at the spot for about 6 and ½ hours. They were declared hostile. PW-1 Ranjeet has admitted in his cross-examination that 3-4 shops were situated at Dhalli Bifurcation. According to PW-3 Govind Singh, police remained on the spot for a period of 1 ½ hours. However, PW-8 Ajeet Singh deposed that they remained at the spot for about 6 and ½ hours. According to Govind Singh PW-3, all the police officials nabbed the accused. However, PW-8 Ajeet Singh deposed that he nabbed the accused. Prosecution should have examined independent witnesses from the spot where accused was nabbed. Office of Chief Engineer was situate near the spot. 3-4 shops were also situate near the spot. According to PW-1 Ranjeet and PW-2 Manoj Kumar, nothing was recovered in their presence. They deposed that their signatures were obtained by the police. They have denied categorically that the accused was found in possession of black articles in the shape of sticks (charas) which weighed 248 grams. PW-2 Manoj Kumar also deposed that police called him inside the Check post and asked to put his signatures. PW-4 Joginder Sharma feigned ignorance about the alleged occurrence. Prosecution has failed to prove that the Charas was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. Now so far as recovery memos etc. are concerned these were signed by PW-1 Ranjeet and PW-2 Manoj Kumar but they have not supported the prosecution case. 12. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 13. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.