Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 950 (HP)

Kewal Krishan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-07-12

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of 23.3.2017, rendered by the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in FN/NDPS Act/429/2015, whereunder, the learned trial Court hence convicted, and, sentenced the appellant/accused to (a) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 21/2 years , for commission, of, an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.6.2015 around 9.15 P.M HC Virender Singh (PW-11) alongwith HC Tej Singh (PW-2), HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW-1), C. Sanjay Kumar No. 145 and C Sanjay Kumar No. 327, in government vehicle bearing No. HP 48-1220 driven by C Mehar Dutt proceeded towards Ind nalla and Koti. Around 9.45 p.m. they reached at Ind Nalla and laid the nakka there. They checked 3-4 vehicles uptill 10.25 P.M. At the same time, a person came down from the pakdandi towards Ind Nalla having one carry bag on your right hand. On seeing the police party, he tried to flee away from the spot and ran towards chamba aside. On the basis of the suspicion, he was nabbed. Thereafter his credentials were inquired on which he disclosed his name to be Kewal Krishan R/o village Malie, Tehsil Churh, District Chamba. The multi coloured carry bag on which crystal brilliant was written was checked. On opening the carry bag, brown colored half sleeve hood, and, a black coloured polythene bag came out. On opening the black coloured polythene bag, hard substance in the shape of round sticks were found. On checking the black coloured hard substance with the help of drug detection kit it was found to be cannabis/charas. On weighment, it was found to be 1 killo 674 grams. Thereafter the police commenced the investigation, and, on conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, final report was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The appellant/accused stood charged, for, his having committed offence punishable, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, by the learned trial Court, to, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. 3. The appellant/accused stood charged, for, his having committed offence punishable, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, by the learned trial Court, to, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant/accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, wherein, he pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead, any evidence in defence. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the appellant/accused. 6. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the recording of judgment of conviction, and, consequent sentence imposed upon him, by the learned trial Court. The learned vice counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, that, the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing, not based on a proper appreciation by it, of, the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, they, contend that the findings of conviction, being reversed by this Court, in, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Court below, standing, based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, hence, 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 vice counsel for the appellant, has submitted qua the depositions of the official witnesses, being not credible, hence for, assigning any credit thereto, and, moreso, when no independent witnesses stood associated in the relevant seizure, as, stood made, at the site of occurrence. 10. 9. The learned vice counsel for the appellant, has submitted qua the depositions of the official witnesses, being not credible, hence for, assigning any credit thereto, and, moreso, when no independent witnesses stood associated in the relevant seizure, as, stood made, at the site of occurrence. 10. However, the afore submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant, has no tenacity, (a) unless the depositions', of the official witnesses concerned, are, ridden with, a, gross taint, sparked by there existing no apt corroborative inter-connectivities, inter-se, the seizure of the contraband, made at the site of occurrence, from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, and, imperatively, upto the production of case property, before the learned trial Court, (b) and the afore inter-connectivities hence appertaining to the number(s), and, description(s), of the seal impression(s), embodied in the seizure memo, borne in PW-1/C, and, thereafter echoed in NCB form, borne in PW-9/A, abstract of malkhana register, borne in Ex. PW-10/C, and, in the report of FSL, borne in Ex. PZ, (c) wherein rather a categorical enunciation, is, borne qua the sample sent, to it, for examination rather containing therewithin hence charas. Preeminently, the afore inter-connectivities, stand cogently established, from the stage, of the seizure being made, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, upto, the production of case property in Court, whereupon, there is no enjoined necessity cast upon the Investigating Officer, to, associate any independent witness, in the relevant seizure(s). Further more, any omission on the part of the Investigating Officer, to, associate any independent witnesses in the relevant seizure, would not perse constrain any conclusion from this Court, qua, the Court, may hence not assigning any credit, vis-a-vis, the testifications' of the official witnesses concerned. In the afore endeavor, and, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court is of the view, that, there was no enjoined necessity, upon, the Investigating Officer, to, associate in the relevant exercise, any independent witnesses thereto, as, the relevant inter connectivities, inter-se, the seizure made from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, through, an apt seizure memo comprised in Ex. PW-1/C, rather surviving upto the production of the case property in Court, and, the apt synonymity rather appertaining to the number(s), and, description(s), of, seal impressions embossed thereon, and, upon the afore exhibits. PW-1/C, rather surviving upto the production of the case property in Court, and, the apt synonymity rather appertaining to the number(s), and, description(s), of, seal impressions embossed thereon, and, upon the afore exhibits. The recovery of the relevant item, of contraband, was made, from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, through memo, borne in Ext. PW-1/C, whereon, the uncontested signatures of the accused stand borne, and, hence the estopping statutory principles, engrafted in the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, bar the accused to contest the voicing(s), borne therein, unless the hereinafter alluded apt interconnectivities, do not emerge, at the stage of production of the case property in Court (a) AND also in contemporaneity, vis- -vis, the afore seizure, standing effectuated, by the Investigating Officer concerned, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, rather NCB form, borne in Ext. PW-9/A, stood also drawn, (b) wherein reflections are cast, vis- -vis, 5 seal impressions each, on the bulk, and, the sample parcels, hence carrying English alphabet "T", standing embossed thereon, and, whereon, the uncontested signatures of the accused stand borne, and, hence the estopping statutory principles, engrafted in the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, bar the accused to contest the voicing(s), borne therein, unless, the hereinafter alluded apt interconnectivities, do not emerge, at the stage of production of the case property in Court (c) the Station House Officer concerned, upon receiving the seized contraband, at the police station concerned, also embossed thereon 3 re-sealing(s) seal impressions rather carrying English alphabet "N". The afore seizure(s) was/were, deposited in the Mallkhana concerned. Subsequent thereto, under road certificate, borne in Ext.PW-8/D, the seized contraband, stood dispatched, to the FSL concerned, for the latter, hence making an apt opinion thereon. All the afore exhibits, carry narratives therein, vis- -vis, the description(s), and, number(s), of the seal impressions, embossed, respectively upon the bulk, and, upon the sample parcels, and, all the afore visibly carry interse compatibility(ies), and, synonymity(ies). Furthermore, the FSL concerned, upon receiving, the case property, has, in its report, embodied, in Ext. All the afore exhibits, carry narratives therein, vis- -vis, the description(s), and, number(s), of the seal impressions, embossed, respectively upon the bulk, and, upon the sample parcels, and, all the afore visibly carry interse compatibility(ies), and, synonymity(ies). Furthermore, the FSL concerned, upon receiving, the case property, has, in its report, embodied, in Ext. PZ, made echoing(s) therein rather bearing compatibility, vis- -vis, the afore facet(s), as narrated in the afore-referred exhibits, (d) and has also rendered, an opinion, qua the parcel sent to it, for analysis, carrying therein rather all the ingredients, of, Charas, (e) and thereafter, echoing(s) are also borne therein, qua the FSL concerned, after extracting, the ingredients/contents, as stood carried in the sample parcel, sent to it, for analysis, and, upon, thereafter its making an opinion thereon, rather, it subsequent thereto, re-inserting the ingredient(s) in the cloth parcel, and, it embossing thereon, the, seal impression(s), of, the FSL. The charge would be concluded, to be, efficaciously proven by the prosecution, (f) upon each of the prosecution witnesses concerned, wheretowhom, the case property(ies), stood shown in Court, hence in their respective testification(s), making clear/candid echoing(s), qua the relevant congruities, and, similarities, interse, the number(s), and, description(s) of the seal impressions, as stand echoed, in the afore exhibits, also existing, emphatically upon, the case property, upon, its production in Court. However, at the time of production, of the case property in Court, and, thereat its being shown, to the prosecution witnesses concerned, though, as aforestated, the relevant connectivities, stand echoed, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, (g) and, when thereat, the accused persons stood also represented, by the defence counsel,(h) hence when the learned defence counsel, rather thereat held the opportune moment, to, on sighting the case property, hence make therethrough(s) decipherment(s), and, discerning(s), vis- -vis, the afore congruities, or compatibilities, being amiss therein (j) or not, rather, visibly even at the afore stage, the learned defence counsel, did not, either object to the production, or exhibition, of the case property in Court, (i) nor thereafter proceeded to make any strivings, to elicit, from the prosecution witnesses concerned, any echoing(s), qua the relevant connectivities, (k) not existing(s), nor the learned defence counsel endeavored, to, hence ensure qua the Court making any observation, during, the course of recording, of the testification(s), of the prosecution witnesses', concerned, qua the aforestated relevant compatibilities, and, interconnectivities, interse the bulk, and, seal parcels, and, appertaining to the number(s), and, description(s), of, 3 seal impressions, carrying English alphabet, "N", narrated in Ext.PW9/C , (l) rather not emerging, at the stage of production, of the case property, in Court. In sequel to the afore, an inference is sparked, qua the learned defence counsel, rather acquiescing qua the relevant apposite congruities, and, connectivities, emerging interse, the, number(s) and description(s), of the seal impressions, carrying thereon English alphabet "T", and, as stood embossed, on the samples, and, bulk parcels, and, qua wherewith, a synonymous narrative, is, carried in Ext. PW-9/A, hence at the imperative stage, of production of case property in Court. 11. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record, portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court, not suffering from any perversity and absurdity, nor, it can be said that the learned trial Court, in recording findings of conviction, has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence, on record or its omitting, to appreciate, the, relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, hence, merit any interference. 12. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, hence, merit any interference. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.