Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 672 (MP)

Harprit Singh @ Rinku v. State of M. P.

2019-09-18

ROHIT ARYA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against judgment dated 17.10.2013 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 26/2010 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch, District Neemcuh. The trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under section 8/15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced him to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation. However, acquitted the co-accused Harprit Singh @ Billa from the charge under sections 8/15(c) in alternate under sections 8/15(c) read with section 29 of the Act. The State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal under the said charge, therefore, the same has attained finality. 2. As per prosecution case; a secret information was received by the then Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Jeeran, Neemuch to the effect that on 19.7.2009 about 6.30 am; a Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. PB-11-AL-2380 carrying huge quantity of dodachura passing through Neemuch towards State of Punjab. On receiving such information, in the presence of panch witnesses Kailash Chandra Bhatt (PW-3) and Vikram Odha (PW-5) had prepared Roznamcha panchnama (exhibit P/5). Since search has to be conducted immediately, absence of search warrant has been prepared vide panchnama exhibit P/6 and to make arrangements for presence of panch witnesses. In compliance of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, copies of exhibits P/1 and P/2 were forwarded with a covering letter to the office of Superintendent of Police through Constable Pranav Tiwari (P.W.2). The police raid party alongwith panch witnesses reached near village Chaldu, opposite Babu Banchda's Dhaba, Mhow-Neemuch Road and prepared blockade panchnama (exhibit P/3). The Police party tried to stop the car, but the driver of the car did not stop the car. The police party chased them by government vehicle. Near Ganesh Banchda's Gumti the driver and other persons left the car and fled away towards field in the dark. Police party prepared panchanama (exhibit P/7) and searched the vehicle and prepared panchnama in presence of the witnesses (exhibit P/8). On search two gunny bags were found on the seat and two gunny bags were found in the dickey containing 102 Kgs. dodachura. After following necessary formalities, two samples were kept in plastic bags of 500 gms each for forwarding the same to the forensic laboratory for obtaining the report. On search two gunny bags were found on the seat and two gunny bags were found in the dickey containing 102 Kgs. dodachura. After following necessary formalities, two samples were kept in plastic bags of 500 gms each for forwarding the same to the forensic laboratory for obtaining the report. Thereafter, the entire quantity was seized vide seizure memo exhibits P/13 to P/15. FIR was registered vide exhibit P/17. During investigation on 4.8.2009 on MhowNeemuch Road, Near village sagargram, from Suresh's Dhaba two persons namely Harprit Singh @ Billa and Harprit Singh @ Rinku, both residents of Punjab were arrested. The arrest Panchnamas were prepared as Exhibit P/30 and P/31. Their statements were recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act and marked as Exhibits P/33 and P/34. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons before the concerned Court. 4. The trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/81; the documents on record and the accused have examined defence witnesses. 6. The trial Judge upon critical evaluation of the evidence and documents placed on record, particularly; documents exhibits P/1 to P/19 wherein in some of them, the accused have appended their signatures and also not denied their signatures found charge proved against the appellants. As a result, convicted him and passed the sentence referred above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while criticizing the impugned judgment contends that there is mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and committed grave illegality having relied upon the testimony of the evidence led by cited witnesses; particularly; P.W.4 Ramgopal and P.W.6 Julfikar and the documents relied upon by the trial Court. He contends that the provisions contained under sections 35, 42, 50 and 57 of the Act have not been followed, hence the conviction and order of sentence is bad in law. He has submitted that the appellants have been falsely roped in the case and there was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of offence alleged against the appellants. Under such circumstances, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, hence, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge. 8. He has submitted that the appellants have been falsely roped in the case and there was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of offence alleged against the appellants. Under such circumstances, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, hence, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge. 8. An alternate submission has also been put-forth by the learned counsel submits that the appellant is very poor and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence, his conviction and sentence may be maintained but, the amount of fine may be reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to the extent deposited in the trial Court vide receipt No. 52708 dt. 12.8,2011, i.e., Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). He has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 27.6.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench, in this regard. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment submits that the conviction in question is well merited though the appellant is first offenders, but considering the bulk quantity of contraband seized in thickly populated area during broad day light from them, the minimum sentence imposed by the trial Court for the said offence deserve to be maintained and the fine may not be reduced as sought for. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the obtaining facts and circumstances and the fact that the trial Court has meticulously analyzed evidence of each and every witness so also the documents placed on record; particularly exhibits P/1 to P/19 wherein the signatures have been appended by the accused but, not rebutted and huge quantity of contraband substance seized from their possession, there appears to be no lacunae in observing the provisions of the Act, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants. Further, P.W.6 Ramgopal, Assistant Sub-Inspector has proved exhibits P/17, 18 and P/19; the procedure followed in search and preparation of panchnama as well discussed in paragraphs 21 to 24 of the judgment. There is no scope to discredit the testimony of P.W.6 as sought to be impinged by learned counsel for the appellant. The trial Judge while appreciating the evidence has followed the principles of law laid down in various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred thereof and reached conclusion for convicting the appellant and imposed the minimum sentence of ten years. The trial Judge while appreciating the evidence has followed the principles of law laid down in various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred thereof and reached conclusion for convicting the appellant and imposed the minimum sentence of ten years. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the conviction and sentence deserve to be and is hereby maintained. Now considered the alternate prayer. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 8/15(c) is hereby maintained. In the obtaining facts and circumstances, the fine amount is reduced to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) already deposited by the appellant before the trial Court on 12/08/2011. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to that extent as indicated hereinabove. 12. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment immediately to the Trial Court for necessary compliance.