Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 538 (UTT)

Chandra Sain @ Bablu v. State of Uttaranchal

2017-10-10

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. On personal search of appellants Chandra Sain @ Bablu and Yasin Ansari by the police party on 15.12.2002, five kilograms poppy husk was recovered from the possession of each. When the police party asked for license to keep the contraband, accused persons could not produce the same. Police party was patrolling and when they reached near Pal Dhaba, village Sisaiya, an informer informed them that two persons were coming with poppy husk. On receiving the information from the informer, police party reached near Kanthgari Bhudia Farm. They saw two persons coming towards them. Accused persons were made to stop at around 04:30 P.M. Accused tried to flee away, but were apprehended on the spot. One of the accused disclosed his name as Chandra Sain and another disclosed his name as Yasin Ansari. Both of them were offered to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. Both of them volunteered that the police party may search them. After obtaining their consent, personal search was taken. During search, 5 Kg. poppy husk in two plastic bags was found from each of them of which they could not produce any license. Both the accused were taken into custody.200 grams each of poppy husk was taken as specimen, which was recovered from the two plastic bags being carried by the accused-appellants. No public witness was prepared to be a witness to the incident. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot. Left thumb impression of accused Yasin Ansari and right thumb impression of accused Chandra Sain @ Bablu was taken on recovery memo. Separate search memo of both the accused was also prepared. 2. Sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for examination. F.S.L. Agra, vide letter dated 05.03.2003, reported that the sample, which was sent to them by the Court, contained poppy husk. The same was forwarded by the Director of F.S.L. and, therefore, is admissible in evidence. Another report in respect of poppy husk found from the possession of co-accused was also sent by F.S.L. to the Court with the finding that the sample sent to them contained poppy husk. 3. After FIR was lodged, investigation was conducted. Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 18/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act). 4. 3. After FIR was lodged, investigation was conducted. Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 18/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act). 4. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 18 / 20 N.D.P.S. Act was framed against both the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. PW1 S.I. Anil Kumar, who was then posted in Chief Minister’s security at Dehradun, supported the prosecution story. The Court need not deliberate on his examination-in-chief for the same has already been indicated by this Court in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. 6. PW2 Constable Ikhtiyaar Hussain also supported the prosecution story.PW3 S.I. R.A. Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and found that the accused-appellants have committed offence.PW3 submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants.PW3 also proved certain other prosecution documents.PW3 was not cross-examined on behalf of the appellants despite having given opportunity to do the same. Although PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined, but nothing has come out in their examination that they were telling a lie. Since nothing material has been found in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that they were trustworthy witnesses. Nothing has come in their cross-examination to suggest the falsity of their evidence. 7. No doubt, no independent witness has been obtained and produced in support of the prosecution story, but that is not the ground to discard the prosecution evidence. The law on the point is that if the police witnesses are trustworthy, reliance can be placed on their evidence. So is the case here. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants simply said that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. 8. The Court need not discuss the evidence any further for, suffice will it be to say, that the police witnesses have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellants. Learned trial court has appropriately discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in detail, has also deliberated upon the contents of their cross-examination and has also discussed the case law cited by the defence counsel, especially alleged non-compliance of Section 50, 52, 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned trial court did not find favour with such submissions of learned defence counsel. Learned trial court did not find favour with such submissions of learned defence counsel. It has also held that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Both the accused-appellants have accordingly been convicted under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and were sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each one of the convict was directed to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. 9. This Court is unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the learned trial court. No interference is called for in the judgment and order appealed against. 10. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the appellants confined his prayer only to the extent that since appellant Chandra Sain @ Bablu has completed one year’s rigorous imprisonment and appellant Yasin Ansari has completed nine months rigorous imprisonment, therefore, the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the appellants are ready to pay the amount of fine imposed upon them by the trial court. Learned A.G.A. for the State did not seriously oppose the same. 11. Considering the facts of the case and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellants is hereby affirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to deposition of fine by both the appellants. The judgment and order impugned passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / F.T.C. II, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) stands modified to the extent, as above. 12. Since appellant Chandra Sain @ Bablu has already served the sentence, therefore, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- as directed by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, he has to serve out simple imprisonment for three months. 13. Appellant Yasin Ansari is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months, the period already undergone by him. He is also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- as directed by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, he has to serve out simple imprisonment for three months. 13. Appellant Yasin Ansari is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months, the period already undergone by him. He is also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- as directed by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, he has to serve out simple imprisonment for three months. 14. This disposes of the criminal appeal. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance.