Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 277 (HP)

Geeta Devi v. State of H. P.

2019-03-15

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the convict/accused/appellant, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Solan, H.P., upon, Sessions Trial No.1-NL/7 of 2006, whereunder, he convicted, besides imposed consequent sentence, upon, the convict/accused/appellant, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 7.5.2005 at about 5 PM ASI Dharam Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty where poppy straw was recovered from Dalip and Ishwar, who told them that they had purchased it from accused Gita Devi. ON this information reasons of belief were prepared and same were forwarded to Dy. S.P. Nalagarh through HHC Arjun Singh, who delivered the same to HC Jasbir Chand, the then Reader of Dy. S.P. Nalagarh. Thereafter, Anil Kumar and Ramu Sahni were associated in the raiding party and rukka Ex.PD was also prepared and sent to Police Station, Nalagarh through C. Sashi Pal, on the basis of which FIR EX.PE came to be recorded in P.S. Nalagarh. The raiding party proceeding towards the house of the accused and accused was found sitting outside her house in her cot, who on noticing the police party tried to run away with a bag in her hand at which the accused was over powered with the help of LC Manju and sear of the bag in possession of the accused was conducted which was found to be containing poppy husk which on weighment was found to be 3 kg, 250 grams. The two samples each weight 100 grams were taken separately from the contraband so recovered and the same were put in two different parcels of clothes whereas the remaining poppy husk was also put in the bag and thereafter in a parcel, and, all three parcels were sealed with seal impression "A" and were taken into possession vide separate memo, memo whereof signatured by the witnesses and the accused also put her thumb impression thereon. The sample seal was separately drawn and the site plan was prepared and NCRB form was filled in at the spot. The sample seal was separately drawn and the site plan was prepared and NCRB form was filled in at the spot. The case property along with NCRB form and sample seal was produced before Inspector Samsher Singh, the then SHO P.S. Nalagarh, who has resealed the sample parcels and parcel containing the residue contraband with seal impression "T" regarding which resealing certificate was prepared and the same of seal was taken separately. Thereafter all the codel formalities were completed. AS per the record of the FSL, the contents of the samples were found to be of poppy husk. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/appellant herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, hers committing an offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/appellant herein, for hers hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned senior counsel appearing, for, the appellant herein/accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The recovery of the relevant item of contraband was made under memo Ex.PB. The afore recovery, was made in pursuance, to, reasons to believe, recorded in PC. Subsequent thereto FIR borne in Ex.PE was recorded, and, the NCB form, borne in Ex.PL, records the factum, of, the relevant samples weighing 100 grams each, standing sealed with three seals each, carrying thereon English alphabet "A", (i) and, thereafter the SHO concerned, on, his receiving the afore samples, as well as, the case property, proceeded, to, at the police station concerned, emboss thereon three re-sealing impression(s) carrying thereon, the, English alphabet "T". The afore sample parcels were sent, for, analysis through road certificate No. 51/05 of 9.5.2005, to the CTL, Kandaghat, whereon, the latter recorded, a firm finding qua the exhibits received, by it, containing, hence, contents of poppy husk. The recitals borne in Ex.PB were proven by PW-1, PW-2, and, by PW10. All the afore prosecution witness, whereto whom the case property, was shown, during, the course of recording of their respective depositions, in Court, (ii) in their respective examination-in-chief, made vivid disclosures qua the thereat shown case property to them, comprising the one, as, stood recovered, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused/convict. Even though, the learned defence counsel thereat, held, the opportunity to visualize, all the seal impression(s) embossed thereon, (iii) and, to also hence decipher therefrom, whether there existing compatibility or not, inter se therewith, vis-a-vis, the apt descriptions borne, in, Ex.PB, NCB form, borne in Ex.PL, the road certificate, and, in the report of CTL, borne, in, Ex.PN. However, an incisive reading of the depositions of all the afore witnesses, omits to unveil, qua the afore endeavours being made by the learned defence counsel. However, an incisive reading of the depositions of all the afore witnesses, omits to unveil, qua the afore endeavours being made by the learned defence counsel. Want of making, of, the afore endeavours, by the learned defence counsel, especially at the afore appropriate stage, (iii) does constrain, this Court to conclude, that, the echoings made in Ex.PB, hence standing efficaciously proven, at, the time of production, of, the case property, in Court, hence, connecting it with Ex.PB, NCB form, borne in Ex.PL, road certificate, and, report of the CTL, borne in Ex.PN. In aftermath, the prosecution, is, to be concluded to firmly prove the charge against the accused. 10. Be that as it may, though PW-1, an independent witness, vis-a-vis, recovery memo, borne in Ex.PB, rather in his cross-examination, hence, deposed qua neither the accused, nor Ramu Sahni hence appending in his presence, their respective signature(s) or thumb impressions, upon, Ex.PB, yet the afore deposition, is unavailable, for any derivation of any leverage therefrom, given (a) with PW-1 admitting the existence of his signatures thereon, (b) and, thereupon, when he lends the completest proof, vis-a-vis, the veracity, of, all the recitals hence borne in Ex.PB, recitals whereof appertain to the preparation of Ex.PB at the place, and, time disclosed therein, (c) besides qua its preparation occurring, in, his presence, and, in the presence of PW-2, and, Ram Sahani, (c), whereupon, he is statutorily, through, the mandate, of, Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence, estopped to depose in variance therewith. 11. Moreover, PW-9, in his examination-in-chief, has, feigned ignorance, vis-a-vis, the identity of Geeta Devi. However, upon, his being hence declared hostile, and, the learned PP being permitted to cross-examine him, rather thereat his admitting a suggestion, qua the police associating him, and, Anil Kumar, hence, in the conducting, of, the search of Geeta Devi, (i) thereupon, the afore elicited admission carries therein rather a subtle articulation, by PW-9 qua his being familiar with the identity of Geeta Devi, (ii) and, rather also erodes the effect, if any, of his deposition qua his being unaware, of, the identity of Geeta Devi. Furthermore, he has admitted his signatures on Ex.PB, and, has disclosed, that, he appended his signatures thereon, only upon, the contents thereof being readover and explained to him. Furthermore, he has admitted his signatures on Ex.PB, and, has disclosed, that, he appended his signatures thereon, only upon, the contents thereof being readover and explained to him. In sequel, the effect thereof, is, qua his oral deposition, comprised in his cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, rather unfolding qua the apt recovery being effectuated, from the scooter, in the house of convict Geeta Devi, is to be construable to be bereft, of, the espoused sanctity or probative vigour, (iii) it hence eroding the vigour, of Sections 91 and 92, of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof bar, rather, receipt of any oral deposition, of the witness concerned, in variance, and, in digression, vis-a-vis, evidently hence through his admitted signatures, his hence proving, all the apposite recorded recitals borne therein. In view of the afore, the learned defence counsel cannot espouse, that, the reasons of believe, stand, fictitiously recorded, nor he can espouse, that, the convict, is, falsely implicated in the case. Even otherwise, with the investigating officer remaining unexamined by the learned defence counsel, vis-a-vis, the falsity, of, the reasons of believe, in sequel whereof Ex.PB was prepared, thereupon, it is to be concluded qua the prosecution firmly proving the charge against the accused. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.