Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 511 (HP)

Rohtash v. State of H. P.

2019-04-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the convicts/accused/appellants, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., upon, Sessions Trial No.01/2013, where under, he convicted, besides imposed consequent therewith sentence, upon, the convicts/accused/appellants, for theirs committing, an offence, punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B), of , the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that 19.10.2012, as per Rapat, Ex.PW7/D, a police party headed by ASI Dheeraj Singh, HC Krishan Lal and, HHC Jinesh Kumar was on patrolling and traffic checking duty at Temporary Police Barrier, Bajaura. At about 9.00 a.m., the police party stopped a bus bearing registration No. HP-65-3381 of Anjali Bus Service, enroute from Kullu to Mandi, for checking. Its driver, Chet Ram and conductor Lekh Raj and HC Kirshan Lal were associated as witnesses. When ASI Dheeraj Singh reached near seat Nos. 30 and 31, he found two persons were sitting on these seats. One inquiry, one person disclosed his name as Rohtash and another Narender. These persons were found keeping a carry bag concealed with their legs. Their activities raised suspicion in the mind of the IO. On asking, they could not give any satisfactory answer. On checking of bag having inscription Gautam Footwear, Patlikuhal, Charas in the shape of sticks, pancakes and rectangular packed in a transparent polythene packet was found in the bag. Charas so recovered was weighed with the help of electronic scale and was found to be 700 grams. The recovered charas was repacked in the same manner and was sealed in a cloth parcel with six seals of seal impression "T". Sample seal was drawn separately. NCB-1 form was filled in. Seal, after its use, was handed over to driver Chet Ram. The case property was taken into possession. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and sent the same to the Police Station, Bhunter, through HC Krishan for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR was registered by SI Lal Chand, who on the registration of the FIR, made endorsement on the rukka and handed over the case file to HC Krishan Lal with the direction to take the same to the Investigating Officer at the spot. Site plan was also prepared by the IO and statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their versions. The accused persons were apprised about the offence committed and grounds of their arrest. Information of arrest was given to the brother of accused Rohtash. Their personal search was conducted at the spot by the IO and memos were also prepared. On completion of the proceedings at the spot accused along with case property were brought to police station, Bhunter. In Police station, accused persons along with the case property were produced before SI Lal Chand, who resealed the parcel of case property with three seals of "O" and he also filled the relevant columns of NCB form and drew sample of seal "o". The case property along with sample seal and other relevant documents was deposited with MHC Tara Chand, and, he made the necessary entries in the Register. The Investigation Officer, on the next day, prepared Special report an submitted the same before Dy. S.P., Sh. Pankaj Sharma. On 14.11.2012, the owner of the bus, Rajesh Kumar handed over copies of the documents, i.e. R.C. and permit of his bus to the IPC in the presence of PW-2 and those were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/D. As per the record of the FSL, the contents of the samples were found to be of charas. 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/appellants herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, 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/appellants herein, for theirs hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellants herein/accused, stand aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, upon, the accused/appellants herein, for theirs hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellants herein/accused, stand aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellants 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. 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would succeed in his endeavour, for, begetting reversal of the verdict, of, conviction pronounced, upon, the accused, (a) upon, his from the evidence on record, hence, bringing forth rather candid evidence, in, display of (b) the apposite link evidence, inter se, the recovery of the seized contraband, made, through Ex.PW1/B, and, in pursuance whereof NCB form, borne in Ex.PW2/B, stood prepared, at the site of occurrence, by the investigating officer concerned, (c) AND, thereafter the Station House Officer concerned, embossed thereon, the, resealing impressions, at the police station concerned, (d) and, where after the requisite parcel, stood under Ex.PW2/C, hence, dispatched to the FSL concerned, and, whereon the latter made a pronouncement, qua it, containing traces of charas, opinion whereof, is, embodied in Ex.PW5/D, hence, remaining thoroughly, and, wholly unconnected, vis-a-vis, production of the case property in Court. However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the concerted efforts, made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, to beget reversal of the impugned verdict, (i) is a gross misadventure, on his part, (ii) given the recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B being proven to carry thereon, the, signatures of the witnesses thereto, and, also, of, both the accused, (iii) and, none of the witnesses thereto or the accused making any attempt, to scuttle, the authenticity of their signatures, hence, occurring on Ex.PW1/B. In sequel, all the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, with a clear communication therein qua the recovery, of, the seized contraband, rather being effected, in the manner as disclosed therein, are, to be imputed, the utmost solemn sanctified credibility. 10. The Investigating officer concerned, under, Ex.PW1/A, permitted the accused to carry, his, personal search. The afore exhibit, carries the signatures thereon, of, the witnesses thereto, and, of the accused, and, with the afore signatures occurring thereon, rather remaining unbelied, and with evidently no incriminatory material being recovered, upon, a personal search, of, the officer concerned, nor with the personal search of both the accused, as, respectively carried under memos Ex.PW1/D, and, Ex.PW1/E, both exhibits whereof, carry thereon, the, signatures of the witnesses thereto, and, of the accused concerned, besides with the signatures, of, the afore occurring thereon, remaining undenied, (iv) and, evidently with no incriminatory material standing recovered, both from, the personal search of the IO, and, of the accused, (v) nor when the defence rears any espousal qua preceding the accused, being subjected, to, a personal search, there was any necessity qua adherence, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, (vi) thereupon, and, emphatically, with, the recovery of the contraband, being validly effected, through Ex.PW1/B, from, a bag kept inside the bus, and, within the legs of the accused, and, hence, when the afore manner of recovery of contraband, renders unattracted thereto, rather the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, thereupon, also a further conclusion, is marshable qua the defence, prima facie, for the afore assigned reason, rather conceding qua Ex.PW1/B also attaining solemnity. 11. 11. Be that as it may, as afore stated, though, the, recovery of contraband, stands effectuated through Ex.PW1/B, yet preparation thereof, besides, the, opinion of the FLS concerned, as, embodied in ExPW5/D, also was enjoined to be connected, vis-a-vis, production in court, of, the case property, seized through Ex.PW1/B. In the afore endeavour, the prosecution witnesses hence deposed in unison, and, their respectively rendered depositions, are, bereft of any blemish, of, any intra se contradictions, enclosed in their testifications, respectively comprised in their examinations-in-chief, and, in their respective cross-examinations, and, nor their respectively rendered testifications, are, clouded with any stain, of, any inter se contradictions. (a) The effect thereof, when stands construed with the further factum, qua, given each of the prosecution witnesses concerned, upon, the case property being shown to them in Court, rather thereat making a candid echoing qua the memos embodied in Ex.PW1/A, Ex. (a) The effect thereof, when stands construed with the further factum, qua, given each of the prosecution witnesses concerned, upon, the case property being shown to them in Court, rather thereat making a candid echoing qua the memos embodied in Ex.PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, and, in Ex.PW1/F, carrying thereon, their respective signatures, as well as, of, both the accused, (b) besides when thereat, the requisite parcel embodied in Ex.P-1, and, the seals embossed thereon, were with the permission of the Court, hence broken, and, thereafter, it, was shown, to the prosecution witness concerned (PW-1), and, rather his, identifying his signatures, occurring on the parcel, (c) and obviously the learned counsel, for, the defence not disputing the signatures, also, of the accused, as, borne thereon, (d) thereupon, even when at the time, of, production of Ex.P-1 in Court, and, it thereat, being shown to PW-1, thereon, the trial Court hence recorded qua the afore exhibit, being embossed, with four seals of FSL-II, and, two seals of English alphabet "T", and, two of English letter "O", and, its thereafter recording qua three seals being broken, and, other two seals being not legible, (e) hence, not permitting any leverage, to, the counsel for the appellants, to, contend qua hence, exhibit P-1, upon, its production in Court, and, its thereat being shown to PW-1, it remaining unconnected, vis-a-vis, seizure, of, the apposite contraband, made under memo Ex.PW1/B, (f) nor hence, they, can contend qua its standing unconnected with FSL report, as, borne in Ex.PW5/D. The afore reason, is anvilled upon (g) with the signatures of PW-1, occurring on Ex.P-1, being admitted by PW-1 to be his genuine signatures nor, the, counsel for the accused/appellants hence contesting the authenticity of the signatures, of, the accused, as, occurring thereon, nor his thereafter further contending that hence, with the, learned trial judge, recording observations, during, the course of the recording of testification of PW-1, vis-a-vis, there seals being broken, and, the English alphabet, occurring in the remaining two seals being illegible, rather the afore disclosures working, vis-a-vis, the accused, (h) thereupon he is no wat disempowered to, contend that the recovery, if any, made through Ex.PW1/B, not being enclosed in Ex.P-1, nor he can contend that hence the relevant connectivity, inter se, the recovery, if any, made through Ex.PW1/B, vis-a-vis, production of Ex.P-1 in Court, hence, remaining unestablished rather by the prosecution. Preeminently, when the afore espousals were enjoined to be reared by the learned counsel, for, the defence, while cross-examining PW-1, and, the Investigating Officer concerned, whereas, the afore espousals remaining thereat, rather unrecoursed, by the learned defence counsel, (I) comprised, in his omitting to put apposite therewith suggestions, to both, hence, it is concluded qua the defence, upon, the existence, of, undisputed signatures, upon, Ex.P-1 hence, conceding qua the relevant connectivity, emerging inter se the recovery made through Ex.PW1/B, vis-a-vis, the production of Ex.P-1, in Court. 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 there from, 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.