Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1409 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satnam Singh @ Satta

2016-07-16

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of present appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of Special Judge, Una, in Sessions Case No. 7-VII/2011/Sessions Trial No. 10/2011, dated 26.12.2011, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution was that in the afternoon of 29.09.2010, a police party headed by S.I./S.H.O. Shakti Singh Pathania of Police Station, Haroli, was on routine patrol duty in the official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-20C-0507, which was being driven by driver/constable Vikas Kumar. The other members of the police party were ASI Prem Lal, HC Harish Chander, HC Subhash Chand, HC Kewal Krishan, HHC Ashwnai Kumar, C. Gurmail Singh, L.C. Chanchla Devi, HHC Sat Pal, HHG Rachpal, HHG Dilbag Singh, HHC Ranbir Singh and HHG Jeewan. At around 12.55 noon, when the said police party was present at Chandpur Chowk, HC Sanjay Kumar of Special Investigating Unit, Una, met SHO and HC Sanjay Kumar made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW4/A) before the SI/SHO Shakti Singh to the effect that he was posted as an Investigating Officer in Special Investigating Unit, Una and on 29.09.2010, he was on routine patrol and detection duty on his official motorcycle in the area. At around 12.45 noon, when he was present in Kungrat Bazar, he received secret information to the effect that accused Satnam Singh deals in the sale of poppy straw/husk in an illegal manner in his house in village Heeran Thara. If the said dwelling house of the accused is raided and searched, then poppy straw/husk can be recovered in huge quantity. The said information was reliable and authentic and needful be done. 3. Endorsement was made on the said statement of Sanjay Kumar by the SHO and the same was forwarded through C. Gurmail Singh to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. On the said basis, FIR No. 298/2010 (Ext. PW6/A) was lodged in Police Station, Haroli and endorsement to this effect was made on the Ruqua vide Ext. PW6/B. Reasons of belief were also prepared by the SHO as per the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act vide Ext. On the said basis, FIR No. 298/2010 (Ext. PW6/A) was lodged in Police Station, Haroli and endorsement to this effect was made on the Ruqua vide Ext. PW6/B. Reasons of belief were also prepared by the SHO as per the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act vide Ext. PW5/A and was sent through HC Subhash Chand to the Superintendent of Police, Una, for his information. 4. Thereafter, SHO proceeded to the spot alongwith the staff and HC Sanjay Kumar. SHO sent HC Harish Chander in the official vehicle with driver/constable Vikas Kumar and HC Kewal Krishan to call the local persons after the police party reached the village of the accused. HC Kewal Krishan brought with him Smt. Amarjit Kaur, Ward Panch, Gram Panchayat Heeran Thara. HC Harish Chander came with Rakesh Pal Sharma, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Heeran Thara and Mohinder Singh, Patwari, Circle Kungrat, to the spot. The house of the accused was encircled by the SHO with the help of his subordinates and on the arrival of the independent witnesses, they were informed about the details of the secret information received by the police. Thereafter, the gate of the house of the accused was got opened. The accused was present in his house and he was informed as to why the police was there. The police officials and the witnesses accompanying them gave their search to the accused. Ext. PW1/A to this effect was prepared. Thereafter, the house of the accused was raided and searched in the presence of the independent witnesses. During the search, seven plastic bags were recovered from the ‘Parchhati’ of the bath room of the house of the accused. These bags were brought down from the ‘Parchhati’, opened and checked and they contained poppy straw/husk. Thereafter, a weighing scale and weights were arranged by the police at the spot and all these bags were weighed one after the other. In all, they contained poppy straw/husk. Out of these, two samples of one Kg. each were drawn and these samples were numbered as 1/S-1, 1/S-2 to 7/S-1 and 7/S-2. 14 samples were separately wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘T’ and the bags were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. NCB forms were filled in at the spot and the impression of the seal used was retained on the pieces of cloth including Ext. PW1/B and the NCB forms. 14 samples were separately wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘T’ and the bags were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. NCB forms were filled in at the spot and the impression of the seal used was retained on the pieces of cloth including Ext. PW1/B and the NCB forms. The seal after its use was handed over to Mohinder Singh, Patwari. The proceedings were photographed. The bags and sample parcels etc. were taken into possession vide Memo Ext. PW22/C, which were signed by the accused and the witnesses. A copy of the seizure memo was supplied to the accused free of cost. Site plan showing the place of the alleged recovery was drawn and the statements of the witnesses under Selection 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 5. The accused was arrested and he was also informed about the grounds of his arrest. The information of his arrest was given to his wife. Thereafter, the police party returned to Police Station, Haroli, alongwith the case property and the accused. The case property was produced by SI/SHI Shakti Singh Pathania before ASI Krishan Kumar, who re-sealed the same by affixing seal impression ‘M’. The impression of the seal used was also retained on the NCB forms. The relevant columns of the NCB forms were filled in by ASI Krishan Kumar. He then deposited the case property with the MHC of the Police station. 6. A special report as per Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Una, by the SHO. The sample parcels were sent for chemical test to FSL Junga. The report of the laboratory was obtained and all the seven bags were also produced before the Illaqua Magistrate by the police for the preparation of the inventory as per Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The learned Magistrate too drew the samples of 500 grams each from all the seven bags and the bags and the samples were sealed with the seal of the Court. The samples drawn by the learned Magistrate were also forwarded to Junga for analysis and the report was collected. It was revealed during the course of the investigation that the accused was earlier also booked for the commission of such like offence both by the Himachal and Punjab Police. 7. The samples drawn by the learned Magistrate were also forwarded to Junga for analysis and the report was collected. It was revealed during the course of the investigation that the accused was earlier also booked for the commission of such like offence both by the Himachal and Punjab Police. 7. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. 8. On the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused with regard to poppy straw/husk in question and it accordingly acquitted the accused of the offence alleged against him. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Amicus Curiae. We have also gone through the records of the case and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the stand which has been taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As per the accused, when the police came to his house, he was not there. He was telephonically called to his house. His brother was there at the relevant time who fled away. He has further stated that his elder brother Darbara Singh was forced to sit in the Police Station by the police and lady police came to arrest his wife. He was called and taken in the police vehicle to Police Station, Haroli, thereafter, his brother Darbara Singh was let off by the police. SI Shakti Singh had earlier also framed him in a case under the NDPS Act in the year 2003. The said ASI had asked him to call his brother who had fled away. The accused expressed his inability to do so. He further deposed that, the police official asked him to sign on various papers and procured his signatures and that he had been involved in a false case. 11. The said ASI had asked him to call his brother who had fled away. The accused expressed his inability to do so. He further deposed that, the police official asked him to sign on various papers and procured his signatures and that he had been involved in a false case. 11. Out of the persons who were associated with the search and recovery, the prosecution examined HC Harish Chander, Rakesh Pal Sharma, HHC Ashwani Kumar, HC Sanjay Kumar and SI/SHO Shakti Singh Pathania. The two independent witnesses who were associated with the recovery, namely, Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh, were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the said witnesses had been won over by the accused, as has been argued by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 12. Therefore, now we will closely scrutinize the statements made by the above mentioned witnesses in order to ascertain as to whether the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused and whether the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused. 13. HC Harish Chander has entered the witness box as PW-1 and he has deposed that on 29.09.2010, he alongwith ASI Prem Lal and the other police officials including the SHO were on routine patrol duty in the official vehicle No. HP-20C-0507. At noon, they were present in Chandpur Chowk, where HC Sanjay Kumar met them, who made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the S.H.O., on the basis of which, Ruqua was sent through constable Gurmail Singh and reasons of belief were prepared by the SHO under Section42 of the NDPS Act and handed over to HC Subhash Chand to deliver the same in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una. He has further stated that they proceeded to village Heeran Thara i.e. village of the accused. The SHO directed him and HC Kewal Krishan to call the independent witnesses and he called Mohidner Singh Patwari and Rakesh Pal and brought them to the spot. HC Kewal Krishan brought Smt. Amarjit Kaur. The area was cordoned by them and the witnesses were told regarding the details of the case. Accused Satnam Singh was called out of his house and conveyed the details of the case. HC Kewal Krishan brought Smt. Amarjit Kaur. The area was cordoned by them and the witnesses were told regarding the details of the case. Accused Satnam Singh was called out of his house and conveyed the details of the case. Thereafter, as per the said witness they gave their search to the accused in the presence of witness Smt. Amarjit Kaur vide Memo Ext.PW1/A. The house of the accused was searched. During search, from the ‘Parchhati’ of the bath room of the accused, which has the entry from the ‘Pooja Room’, seven bags were recovered. Those bags were brought down from the ‘Parchhati’ and checked by the S.H.O. Six bags contained poppy husk and one bag was containing the poppy straw. The SHO directed him to bring the weights and scale to the spot. He went to Laluwal and brought the same to the spot from the shop of Lakhvinder Singh. All the bags were weighed. They contained 208 Kgs of poppy straw/husk. Out of all these bags, two samples of one Kg. each were drawn of the poppy straw/husk i.e. total 14 samples. All the samples and the bags were then wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘T’. The bags were numbered from 1 to 7. The NCB forms were filled in at the spot. The seal after its use was handed over to Mohinder Singh, Patwari. The seizure memo was prepared at the spot, which was signed by the accused and the witnesses. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on the fateful day Amarjit Kaur was called by HC Kewal Krishan. He was confronted with his statement Ext. DA wherein it was not so recorded. He also stated that he had got recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the sample and the bags were marked separately and he was confronted with his statement Ext. DA, wherein this was not so recorded. 14. Rakesh Pal Sharma has entered the witness box as PW-2 and stated that he was working in his fields and was called by the police. He firstly went to his house from the fields. DA, wherein this was not so recorded. 14. Rakesh Pal Sharma has entered the witness box as PW-2 and stated that he was working in his fields and was called by the police. He firstly went to his house from the fields. At around 12.30 noon, he reached the house of the accused and remained standing outside the gate of the house of the accused and noticed that some bags were lying inside the house of the accused. Smt. Amarjit Kaur, member of the Panchayat, was also there. He was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the spot, Mohidner Singh, Patwrai, was there. He has denied the suggestion that the he and police officials gave their search to the accused and Memo Ext. PW1/A was prepared in this regard. He denied the suggestion that the house of the accused was searched in his presence which led to the recovery of seven bags of poppy straw/husk. He has also denied the suggestion that two samples each from all the bags were drawn by the police in his presence. He has further stated that when the police prepared all the papers, he was called inside the house to sign the same. 15. HHC Ashwnai Kumar has entered the witness box as PW-3 and stated that he joined the investigation on 29.09.2010 and took photographs in village Heeran Thara relating to the recovery. 16. HC Sanjay Kumar has entered the witness box as PW-17 and stated that on 29.09.2010 while he was posted as SIU, Una, he received secret information to the effect that accused deals in the illegal sale and purchase of poppy straw/husk. He also received the information that the accused carried out said business from his house in village Heeran Thara. He further deposed that if the house of the accused is raided and searched, the recovery can be effected. As the information was reliable, he left Kungrath on the motorcycle for Police Station, Haroli. At around 12.55 noon, when he reached village Chandpur, SI/SHO Shakti Singh Pathania met him alongwith the other police officials. They were in the official vehicle. He narrated the secret information to the SHO, who recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, set the process into motion for search and seizure of the house of the accused. At around 12.55 noon, when he reached village Chandpur, SI/SHO Shakti Singh Pathania met him alongwith the other police officials. They were in the official vehicle. He narrated the secret information to the SHO, who recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, set the process into motion for search and seizure of the house of the accused. He further deposed that the SHO directed HC Kewal Krishan and HC Harish to call independent witnesses. HC Kewal Krishan came with Smt. Amarjit Kaur and HC Harish brought Patwari Mohinder Singh and Up Pradhan Rakesh Pal. Then they proceeded to the house of the accused. The accused who was present in the house, opened the gate. The details of the information were disclosed to the accused and thereafter, they gave their search to the accused in the presence of Smt. Amarjit Kaur and then they entered the house of the accused alongwith the witnesses. Seven plastic bags were recovered from the ‘Parchhati’ of the bath room of the accused and the six bags were containing poppy straw/husk. The accused was not having any permit to keep or sell the poppy straw/husk. 17. Similarly, PW-18 SHO Shakti Singh Pathania has also narrated the occurrence of events. He has deposed that he endorsed the statement made by HC Sanjay Kumar and sent it through C. Gurmail Singh to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. He also deposed that the reasons of belief Ext. PW5/A were prepared by him and sent through HC Subhash Chand to the office of S.P. Una. Then he proceeded to the village of the accused i.e. village Heeran Thara with the staff and HC Sanjay Kumar. He also stated that he directed HC Harish Chander and H.C. Kewal Krishan to bring the independent witnesses. HC Harish Chander returned with Patwari Mohinder Singh and Up Pradhan Rakesh Kumar. H.C. Kewal Krishan returned with Smt. Amarjit Kaur (Ward Panch). He further stated that they went to the house of the accused and gave their search to the accused in the presence of Smt. Amarjjit Kaur. Memo ext. PW11/A was prepared in this regard. After that, they went inside the house of the accused and checked the same, from the ‘Parchhati’ of the bath room, seven plastic bags were recovered. These bags were brought down from the ‘Parchhati’. Memo ext. PW11/A was prepared in this regard. After that, they went inside the house of the accused and checked the same, from the ‘Parchhati’ of the bath room, seven plastic bags were recovered. These bags were brought down from the ‘Parchhati’. He further deposed that the same were opened and checked and six bags contained poppy husk and the seventh bag was found containing the poppy straw. He directed HC Harish Chand to bring the weights and scale to the spot. HC Harish Chander returned after sometime with weights, scale and Lakhvinder Singh. The bags were weighed one after the other. They contained 204 KGs of poppy husk and 04 Kgs of poppy husk. Out of each bag, two samples of 1 Kg. each were drawn. The bags and samples were then sealed by affixing seal impression ‘T’. The seal impression was retained on NCB form and the seal after the use was handed over to Mohinder Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide Memo Ext. PW2/C. Copies of the Memos were supplied to the accused free of costs. The photographs of the spot were taken. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and informed about the grounds of arrest. The case property was produced before him by ASI/SHO Krishan Lal. ASI Krishan Lal resealed the bags etc. with seal ‘M’ and deposited the same with MHC. On 30.09.2010, special report was delivered by him in the office of S.P. Una. The demarcation of the house of the accused was done from the Field Kanungo. 18. These are the material witnesses, which as per learned Deputy Advocate General fully corroborated the case of the prosecution and which aspect of the matter has been ignored as per him by the learned trial Court rendering the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to be bad. 19. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that the accused was previously also booked under Section 15 of the NDPS Act vide FIR No. 687/2003 registered at Police Station in Una on 22.10.2003. In the said case which was registered against the accused SHO Shakti Singh Pathania appeared as PW-16. At that time, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Santoshgarh. In the said case which was registered against the accused SHO Shakti Singh Pathania appeared as PW-16. At that time, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Santoshgarh. In that case, Memo of consent and recovery were prepared by the police which were signed by ASI Shakti Singh as a witness. These Memos have been exhibited as Ext. DG and Ext. DH. A perusal of the same demonstrate that in the earlier case the stand of the prosecution was that house in issue in village Heeran Thara belonged to Satnam Singh accused and his brother Gurbax Singh. A perusal of Ext. D1/D, which is a death certificate, demonstrates that Gurbax Singh died on 23.01.2011 i.e. during the course of investigation of the present case. The prosecution has not produced any material on record that partition had taken place between the accused and his deceased brother Gurbax Singh before his death. The prosecution has also not produced any evidence on record to suggest or substantiate that the accused was residing alone in the house. On the contrary, a perusal of the statement made by PW-2 i.e. Rakesh Pal who happens to be an eye witness to the alleged recovery as well as PW-18 SHO Shakti Singh Pathania reveals that they have deposed that the accused, his wife and children were residing in the house. Ext. D1/C is the copy of judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2006 i.e. the case in which the accused was tried for commission of offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 687/2003. A perusal of the said judgment demonstrates that the accused was acquitted by the learned Court below inter alia on the ground that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and it could not establish that the accused was residing alone in the house. 20. Incidentally, in the present case, three persons were associated as independent witnesses. They are namely Mohinder Singh, Up Pradhan, Rakesh Pal Sharma and Ward Panch Amarjit Kaur. Out of these three witnesses only Rakesh Pal Sharma has been examined as PW-2, whereas the other two spot witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. 20. Incidentally, in the present case, three persons were associated as independent witnesses. They are namely Mohinder Singh, Up Pradhan, Rakesh Pal Sharma and Ward Panch Amarjit Kaur. Out of these three witnesses only Rakesh Pal Sharma has been examined as PW-2, whereas the other two spot witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. As per the records, learned Public Prosecutor gave up PWs Amarjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh on the ground that they were won over by the accused. H.C. Kewal Krishan who was part of the police party, who as per the case of the prosecution, was sent to call the independent witness and who had brought Amarjit Kaur. He was also given up by the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that the house of the accused from where the alleged recovery was effected was situated at some secluded place and there was no habitation near that house. The copy of demarcation report is on record as Ext. PW8/A. This demarcation was conducted by Field Kanungo Subhash Chand (PW-8), who has deposed that he went to the spot with Halqua Patwari Mohinder Singh and the police and the demarcation was conducted by him at the spot and at the time of demarcation Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, wife of the accused, was present. In his cross-examination, he has stated that “there are other houses near to the house of the accused.” Despite this, no neighbour of the accused has been either associated with the recovery or has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case with regard to the alleged recovery made from the house of the accused or with regard to the factum as to who were the persons living in the house. 21. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the house was in the exclusive possession of the accused or that the poppy straw/husk which was allegedly recovered from the house was in the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused only. 22. Now, if we refer to the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated therein that when the police came to his house, he was not there and he was telephonically called to the house. He further stated that his brother was there who fled away. 22. Now, if we refer to the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated therein that when the police came to his house, he was not there and he was telephonically called to the house. He further stated that his brother was there who fled away. He has also stated that his elder brother Darbara Singh was forced to sit by the police in the Police Station and lady police came to arrest his wife. He has also stated that he was called and taken in the police vehicle to Police Station, Haroli and thereafter, his brother Darbara Singh was let off. The accused has also mentioned in his statement that SI Shakti Singh had earlier also framed him in a case under the NDPS Act in the year 2003. This fact stands proved from the record. Therefore, the element of previous animosity between SI Shakti Singh and the accused is apparent and evident from the record. 23. Incidentally, one of the three independent witnesses who actually entered the witness box i.e. PW-2 Rakesh Pal Sharma has not corroborated the story of the prosecution. He was cross-examined at length by learned Public Prosecutor but nothing material could be elucidated from him to substantiate the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the house of the accused was searched in his presence which led to the recovery of seven bags of poppy straw/husk. On the other hand, he has stated that when he reached the spot, the police officials were weighing the bags. No cogent explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the other two spot witnesses in whose presence the alleged recovery was effected, namely, Amarjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh were given up on the ground having been won over by the accused. In our considered view, even if that was so, the prosecution had the opportunity of cross-examining the said witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and to prove the case of the prosecution. Therefore, except the police officials, there is no independent witness who has corroborated the case of the prosecution. We have already observed that from the material on record the prosecution has not been able to prove the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused with regard to the poppy straw/husk. Therefore, except the police officials, there is no independent witness who has corroborated the case of the prosecution. We have already observed that from the material on record the prosecution has not been able to prove the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused with regard to the poppy straw/husk. The statement of police officials does not inspire confidence in the peculiar facts of the case. 24. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Alam Khan Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court, that when the prosecution fails to establish the ownership and possession of the premises from where contraband articles were seized to be that of the accused, then the accused cannot be convicted. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465, that expression “possession” is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts and it may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the word “conscious” means awareness about a particular fact and it is state of mind which is deliberate or intended. The relevant Paras of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- “20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in chapter IV of the Act which relates to offence for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession. 21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. 22. The expression 'possession' is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Supdt & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. 23. The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. 24. 23. The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. 24. As noted in Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in case in question, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. 25. The word 'possession' means the legal right to possession (See Health v. Drown). In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his fire arm in his mother's flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness.)” 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Om Prakash alias Baba Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 632 , that it is not sufficient to prove that the house from where the contraband was recovered belongs to the accused and was in his possession. The prosecution was further required to show that the accused had exclusive possession of the contraband as a very large number of persons including the accused and five of his brothers, their children and their parents were living therein. 27. When we apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the present case, the only conclusion which can be arrived at on the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution is this that the prosecution has neither been able to prove that the house was in exclusive ownership and possession of the accused nor it has been established by the prosecution that the contraband which was allegedly recovered from the said house was in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. 28. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court also demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been minutely gone into by the learned trial Court and after appreciating the evidence on record, it has returned the findings that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, there is neither any perversity nor any infirmity in the said findings returned by the learned trial Court. In our considered view, there is neither any perversity nor any infirmity in the said findings returned by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we uphold the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.