Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 337 (JK)

State of J&K v. Shesh Paul Singh

2022-07-16

MOHAN LAL, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.—The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled “State Vs. Shesh Paul Singh and others” arising out of FIR No. 54/2011, registered with Police Station Lakhanpur for commission of offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, by virtue of which the respondents have been acquitted. 2. The judgment has been impugned on the ground that learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the law and evidence on record and there was enough evidence on record for conviction of the respondents. 3. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and there was abundant evidence on record that warranted the conviction of the respondents. 4. Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the most important witness PW- Sat Paul, who was travelling in the said vehicle has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case which clearly shows that the false and frivolous story was cooked by the prosecution. He further argued that the link evidence is absolutely missing in this case. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. Before this Court takes note of the prosecution story, it needs to be noted that the charge-sheet was filed against 6 accused, out of which accused No. 3 i.e. Naimud Din was discharged, whereas the accused Nos. 4-Kafil Ahmed, 5-Nilesh Kumar and 6-Younis Ali were proceeded under Section 512 Cr. P. C. and only the accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the respondents herein faced the trial. 7. The prosecution story as it emerges out from the charge-sheet is that on 19.07.2011 a Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ was going from Jammu to Pathankot. The same was stopped and checked by the Police at Naka Check Point, Lakhanpur, during the course of routine checking. Respondent No. 1 was found to be the driver of the vehicle and another person who has been cited as prosecution witness No. 2 i.e. Sat Paul Singh was also found in the said vehicle, who stated that he had taken a lift in the said vehicle from Dayala Chack to Pathankot. Respondent No. 1 was found to be the driver of the vehicle and another person who has been cited as prosecution witness No. 2 i.e. Sat Paul Singh was also found in the said vehicle, who stated that he had taken a lift in the said vehicle from Dayala Chack to Pathankot. During the search of the vehicle, 12 packets of Charas weighing 5 kilograms were recovered from the said vehicle and pursuant to the docket sent by ASI-Roldhu Ram, FIR bearing No. 54/2011 was registered at Police Station Lakhanpur for commission of offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer-SHO, Police Station, Lakhanpur proceeded on spot and started the investigation. During the course of investigation, 12 Packets were seized and out of those 12 packets, 12 samples of 50 grams each were also extracted for the purpose of chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. During the course of investigation, the respondent No. 1 disclosed about 16 kilograms of Charas more lying in the vehicle and pursuant to the disclosure statement of the respondent No. 1, 25 more packets were recovered from the vehicle. Thereafter samples of 50 grams each were extracted for the purpose of chemical analysis. Further, it transpired during the investigation that the vehicle was owned by the Accused No. 3 i.e. Naimud Din, who was subsequently discharged by the trial Court and the seized contraband procured by the respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 and was to be delivered to accused No. 4 i.e. Kafil Ahmed. It was also revealed that the respondent No. 1 was in regular contact with Accused No. 5 i.e. Nilesh Kumar and Accused No. 6 i.e. Younis Ali was also involved in the business of trafficking of the Narcotic Drugs. The call details also revealed a nexus between the accused persons for procurement, transportation and delivery of the narcotic drugs. 8. The Investigating Officer produced the charge-sheet against the 6 accused out of which accused Nos. 4 to 6 were proceeded for commission of offence under Section 512 Cr.P.C. The charge-sheet was filed for commission of offences under Sections 8/20/25/27-A/29 NDPS Act before the trial Court on 19.12.2011 and the accused No. 3 was discharged. The charges were framed against the respondents on 28.02.2012. The respondents did not plead guilty, as such, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The charges were framed against the respondents on 28.02.2012. The respondents did not plead guilty, as such, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution had cited as many as 23 witnesses out of which 16 witnesses i.e. PW-1 ASI Roldhu Ram, PW-2 Sat Paul Singh, PW-3 Sanjeet Singh, PW-4 Shashi Kant, PW-5 Jai Karan, PW-6 Deepak Kumar Sharma, PW-14 Shami Jan, PW-15 Saira Begum, PW- 16 Suraj Prakash, PW-17 Muzffar Ahmed, PW-19 Khalid Qayoom, PW-20 Mushtaq, PW-21 Avtar Singh, PW-18 Koushal Singh, PW-22 Pawan Kumar Abrol and PW-23 Chanchal Singh were examined by the prosecution. 9. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant, it would be necessary to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence and same is reproduced as under:— PW-1 ASI Roldhu Ram has stated that on 19.07.2011, he along with Constable Jai Karan, Constable Shashi Kant, Constable Sanjeet Singh and SPO Deepak Kumar Sharma was performing Naka Duty near PNB Bank, Lakhanpur. They were checking the vehicles. At about 2 P.M. one Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ came from Jammu and was proceeding towards Punjab. The vehicle was stopped and the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Shesh Paul Singh. One more person was accompanying him in the vehicle who disclosed his name as Sat Paul Singh and he also stated that he had taken a lift from Dayala Chack till Pathankot. During the checking of the vehicle, 12 packets of Charas wrapped in polythene were recovered from the vehicle. The Charas was being taken from Srinagar to Delhi. The weight of the Charas was found to be 5 kilograms. He prepared the docket for registration of FIR and sent the same to Police Station through Constable-Jai Karan and thereafter SHO came on spot, FIR bearing No. 54/2011 for commission of offences under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act was registered. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and seized the vehicle. The Charas was also seized. Out of the 12 packets, 12 samples of 50 grams each were extracted for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) analysis and the same were sealed on spot. He signed on the seizure memo and the same was marked as EXT-1. The contraband was also shown to him in the Court. During the cross-examination, he stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement on 19.07.2011 after registration of FIR. He signed on the seizure memo and the same was marked as EXT-1. The contraband was also shown to him in the Court. During the cross-examination, he stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement on 19.07.2011 after registration of FIR. 12 samples of 50 grams each from 12 packets of Charas were extracted in his presence and the same were also sealed in his presence, but he does not know under whose supurdnama the seal was kept. The Police Station is situated at 200 feet away from the place of recovery. No further recovery was effected in his presence. During checking, 5 to 7 civilians had came on spot. When their names and addresses were asked, they went away. Constable-Sanjeet Singh was sent for bringing the weighing machine. He brought the same from a vegetable vendor but the vegetable vendor was not present on spot. Weighing scale was not electronic. There was no prior information with regard to the vehicle in question. He further stated that respondent No. 2 was not present in the vehicle and also he does not know about the involvement of respondent No. 2. PW-2 Sat Paul has stated that on 19.07.2011, he had to go to Pathankot and was standing on the road at Dayala Chack. After about 1-¾ hours of wait, no bus came, thereafter one Scorpio came. He took a lift in the said vehicle for Pathankot. The driver told him to pay any amount as fare. The Police had laid Naka at Lakhanpur. The vehicle was checked and 12 packets were recovered from the rear window of the vehicle. Thereafter, the SHO came on spot, the vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Shesh Paul Singh. The driver told the Police that contraband belonged to him and the witness was innocent. Thereafter, the Police enquired from the driver and told him that if other articles are there, he should hand over the same to the Police and he would not be beaten. Thereafter, the accused brought 25 more packets, some from the front seat, some from the tank of the vehicle. He identified his signatures on seizure memo, recovery memo, disclosure statement. The seizure memo of 12 packets was exhibited as EXT-2. Seizure and recovery memo of 25 packets was marked as EXT-P-2/1 and disclosure statement was marked as EXT-P-2/2. Thereafter, the accused brought 25 more packets, some from the front seat, some from the tank of the vehicle. He identified his signatures on seizure memo, recovery memo, disclosure statement. The seizure memo of 12 packets was exhibited as EXT-2. Seizure and recovery memo of 25 packets was marked as EXT-P-2/1 and disclosure statement was marked as EXT-P-2/2. He also signed on the memo of personal search. Seized contraband was shown to him and he stated that it might have been the same that was recovered. During cross-examination, he stated that Naka was laid near the Toll Post, Lakhanpur. He did not know the accused prior to occurrence. He was also kept in the Police Station for 3 days and was released after he was made witness. He had signed on all the documents shown to him today in the court on the same date and at the same time i.e. on the third day i.e. 21.07.2011, when he was released from the custody. He did not know Urdu and he could not read what was written in them. The Police asked him to sign the same for releasing him. The Police had asked him to make the statement against the accused and because of this reason only he had come to the court today for making a statement. He cannot tell the name of the Police personnel/official, who asked the accused to hand over the other articles also. The disclosure memo EXT-P-2/2 does not have mention of this fact. EXT-P-2/2 was not read over to him. Packets were not sealed before him. He does not know as to who else signed the documents besides him, as no one signed on the same in his presence. The packets were not weighed in front of him. When 25 packets were recovered, he was in the Police Station and not present on spot. He had signed on the statement on the asking of the Police. He does not have any knowledge about the number of the Scorpio. This is correct that he made a statement in the court on the asking of Darshan and Karan who were present on the Naka Duty. Nothing was recovered in his presence. During cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent No. 2, he stated that he has seen the accused No. 2 for the first time in the Court. This is correct that he made a statement in the court on the asking of Darshan and Karan who were present on the Naka Duty. Nothing was recovered in his presence. During cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent No. 2, he stated that he has seen the accused No. 2 for the first time in the Court. PW-3 Sanjeet Singh stated that on 19.07.2011, he was performing his Naka Duty and was checking the traffic along with ASI-Roldhu Ram, Constable-Jai Karan, Constable-Shashi Kant and SPO-Deepak Kumar Sharma. At around 2 P.M. one vehicle-Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ came from Jammu and was proceeding towards Pathankot. The vehicle was stopped. The driver disclosed his name as Shesh Paul Singh. One more person was along with him who disclosed his name as Sat Paul. During checking they recovered 12 packets of Charas from the rear window of the vehicle and it was found to be 5 kilograms. Thereafter, ASI-Roldhu Ram prepared a docket and sent the same through Jai Karan for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the SHO, Police Station, Lakhanpur came on spot. Photography was conducted. SHO extracted samples of 50 grams each from all the packets for examination by FSL. Sat Paul disclosed that he had taken a lift in the said vehicle. The packets were sealed and the ring was handed over to Sat Paul. Supurdnama was prepared and thereafter, the vehicle and accused were taken to Police Station. Accused-respondent No. 1 disclosed that there is more Charas in the vehicle. There was one box below the seat of the driver and from that box 6 packets were recovered. There was another box below the front seat and 6 packets were recovered from that box. Also, there was a box in the petrol tank and 13 packets were recovered from there. It was weighed and there was 16 kilograms of Charas. He identified his signatures on the seizure memo that was already marked as EXT-P-2. He identified his signatures on seizure memo of vehicle that was marked as EXT-P-3. He also identified his signatures on disclosure statement that was already marked as EXT-P-2/2. He also identified his signatures on the recovery and seizure memo of 25 packets that was marked as EXT-P-2/1. Likewise, he identified his signatures on arrest memo. The seized articles were also shown to him in the Court. He also identified his signatures on disclosure statement that was already marked as EXT-P-2/2. He also identified his signatures on the recovery and seizure memo of 25 packets that was marked as EXT-P-2/1. Likewise, he identified his signatures on arrest memo. The seized articles were also shown to him in the Court. During cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent No. 1, he stated that he cannot read Urdu. Besides him, witness Sat Paul had also signed on the papers and some other persons had also signed on the same, but he does not know their names. They were Police officials. He had signed on his statement on spot and all the other documents were signed by him in the Police Station and he signed all those documents on one day. The packets shown to him in the court did not bear the FIR No. or the offences. Many civilians were present on spot. There were many shops around the place of recovery. At the time of disclosure statement by the respondent No. 1, PW-Sat Paul was also present on spot. Accused No. 2 was not known to him. He has not seen the seal in the Court and also does not remember facsimile impression of the seal. SHO, Chanchal Singh enquired from the accused about the articles and then he disclosed that some were hidden in the vehicle. Thereafter, the Police brought those articles from the vehicle. He had also gone for getting the articles from the car and the accused was lodged in the jail. During cross-examination by respondent No. 2, he stated that respondent No. 2 was not known to him. He had no concern with the seized articles. PW-4 Shashi Kant stated that on 19.07.2011, they had laid a Naka at Lakhanpur and during checking one Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ came. He stopped the car and during checking the driver disclosed his name as Shesh Paul Singh, who is present in the Court. He was accompanied by one more person, namely, Sat Paul, who had taken lift from Dayala Chack. During checking from the rear window of the vehicle, 12 packets of Charas were recovered. ASI-Roldhu Ram prepared one document and sent the same to the Police Station. Thereafter, SHO came on spot and he started performing his duty and SHO continued to perform his duty. During checking from the rear window of the vehicle, 12 packets of Charas were recovered. ASI-Roldhu Ram prepared one document and sent the same to the Police Station. Thereafter, SHO came on spot and he started performing his duty and SHO continued to perform his duty. Thereafter, on 27th, Aslam was arrested from Mattan, Anantnag, but nothing was recovered from Aslam. He identified his signatures on the supurdnama that was already marked as EXT-P-2/3. He also identified his signatures on the arrest memo and search memo of the respondent No. 2 and they were marked as EXT-P-4 and EXT-P-4/1 respectively. During cross-examination by the accused No. 1, he stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused-Shesh Paul Singh and Sat Paul were arrested. He does not know when the accused No. 2 was released. He cannot say for how many days Sat Paul was kept in custody. During cross examination by accused No. 2, he stated that accused No. 2 was not known to him prior to 27.07.2011. He cannot say as to why accused No. 2 was arrested. Nothing was recovered from accused No. 2 at the time of arrest and even after that. PW-5 Jai Karan has deposed on similar lines as that of PW-Sanjeet Singh and PW-Roldhu Ram that on 19.07.2011, during their duty at Naka, one Scorpio bearing No. 4283-DL3CAJ was stopped and from the rear window of the vehicle 12 packets were seized and pursuant to the docket sent to the Police Station, FIR bearing No. 54/2011 was registered and thereafter SHO came on spot and samples of 50 grams each were drawn from all the packets for FSL examination. Two persons were travelling in the vehicle. Shesh Paul Singh was driver of the vehicle and name of the other occupant was Sat Paul. Personal search of Shesh Paul Singh was conducted and he identified his signatures on the same. Search memo was marked as EXT-P-2/4. The vehicle as well as documents were seized in his presence. He identified his signatures on the same and it was marked as EXT-P-3. During cross examination, he stated that he and Sat Paul are resident of the same village but he had never seen Sat Paul prior to the occurrence. He does not know as to whether Sat Paul was arrested in the same FIR as the occurrence is old. He identified his signatures on the same and it was marked as EXT-P-3. During cross examination, he stated that he and Sat Paul are resident of the same village but he had never seen Sat Paul prior to the occurrence. He does not know as to whether Sat Paul was arrested in the same FIR as the occurrence is old. EXT-P-2/4 and EXT-P-3 were signed by him on spot. Sanjeet and Sat Paul also signed the same on spot. The weighing machine was electronic. During cross-examination by respondent No. 2, he stated that he does not know accused No. 2 and he was not present in the vehicle on the day of occurrence. PW-6 Deepak Kumar Sharma stated that on 19.07.2011, they were on checking duty in Lakhanpur Bazar. One vehicle bearing No. 4283-DL3CAJ came from Jammu and was proceeding towards Delhi. ASI-Roldhu Ram along with Constable-Sanjeet Singh, Constable-Shashi Kant and Constable-Jai Karan started checking the vehicle. During checking, the driver disclosed his name as Shesh Paul Singh. One more person was accompanying him, who disclosed his name as Sat Paul who had taken a lift from Dayala Chack to Pathankot. ASI checked the vehicle and from rear window of the vehicle 12 packets of Charas were recovered. They were weighed and were found to be of 5 kilograms. Thereafter, ASI prepared the docket and sent the same to Police Station for registration of FIR. Thereafter, SHO also came on spot and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement. During cross examination, he stated that he signed on his statement but he does not remember who prepared the said document. His signatures were obtained by the ASI-Roldhu Ram. He reached back at Police Station at about 3 P.M. The accused had arrived there half an hour ago. He cannot say when Sat Paul was released by the Police. Except him none else including the accused signed any paper on spot. Charas was taken by ASI himself for weighing. The contraband was weighed in front of him. He cannot say who brought the weighing machine but it was electronic in nature. The contraband was not shown to him in the Court. The contraband was recovered after opening rear window of the vehicle. No civilian came on spot at that time. PW-14 Shami Jan stated that she does not know the accused and also does not know anything about the occurrence. The contraband was not shown to him in the Court. The contraband was recovered after opening rear window of the vehicle. No civilian came on spot at that time. PW-14 Shami Jan stated that she does not know the accused and also does not know anything about the occurrence. Her statement was not recorded by the Police. Sim No. 9858994611 was given to her by a boy from Bihar who was working in her house as a labourer. The Sim was blocked one year ago through service provider. This is wrong that she had given the Sim to her father, who gave it to the accused No. 2 for use. PW-15 Saira Begum stated that the respondent No. 2 is her son. He was summoned in Police Station, Mattan. He was arrested by the Lakhanpur Police and thereafter she was made to sign some papers. She was declared hostile and despite cross-examination, learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not elicit any incriminating material from the said witness. PW-16 Suraj Prakash stated that on 03.08.2011 he conducted the mechanical check-up of the Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ. The vehicle was in order. Some boxes were fitted in the said vehicle, one of which was under the driver seat, another adjacent to it extending up to rear seat and third one was created out of a portion of fuel tank. PW-17 Muzffar Ahmed stated that Sim No. 9796549161 is in his name and the same was being used by his mother. Witness was declared hostile and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor during cross examination could not elicit any incriminating material against the accused. PW-20 Mushtaq Ahmed proved the letter EXPW-EX. PW Avtar Singh stated that Inspector of Police Station, Lakhanpur brought 37 packets before him for resealing and he issued the certificate dated 22.07.2011 that was marked EXT-P-21. During cross-examination he stated that EXT-P-21 was prepared by his clerk and the name of Shesh Paul Singh was mentioned in the same on the asking of the Police. He did not verify the name of Shesh Paul Singh from FIR or any other document. PW-19 Khalid Qayoom stated that the accused No. 2 was arrested from Mattan, Anantnag as per directions of SHO-Chanchal Singh. He also got 37 packets of Charas re-sealed through Magistrate. He did not verify the name of Shesh Paul Singh from FIR or any other document. PW-19 Khalid Qayoom stated that the accused No. 2 was arrested from Mattan, Anantnag as per directions of SHO-Chanchal Singh. He also got 37 packets of Charas re-sealed through Magistrate. He raided the house of the accused No. 4 at Delhi but he could not be arrested and instead he recorded the statements of his wife, his employees and others. During cross-examination, he stated that he does not know why accused No. 2 was arrested and must be known to the SHO, Police Station, Mattan. He raided the house of the accused No. 4 on the disclosure of accused No. 1. PW-18 Koushal Singh stated that he delivered 37 packets of Charas in FSL, Jammu and got the receipt from FSL and delivered it in the Police Station. Thereafter, he also went to Mattan, Anantnag, in connection with inquiry about a Sim card. He also recorded the statements of Muzffar Ahmed, Shah Nawaz, Saira Begum and Mst. Shami Jan. In cross-examination, he stated that he delivered the packets in FSL, Jammu on 27.07.2011 through a receipt but the receipt in not on court file, although the same was handed over by him to Munshi of Police Station. If any receipt reveals that the packets were delivered in FSL, Jammu on 06.08.2011, it is fake. He had delivered the packets in FSL, Jammu on 27.12.2011. PW-23 Chanchal Singh stated that on 19.07.2011, Naka was laid at Lakhanpur near Punjab National Bank. One vehicle bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ was stopped for checking and the same was being driven by the accused No. 1-Shesh Paul Singh. Sat Paul was also sitting in the said vehicle. The vehicle was searched and 12 packets of Charas were recovered from it. After the registration of the FIR, he took over the investigation. He went on spot, prepared the site plan and seized the recovered contraband and also extracted samples and sealed them. The contraband was weighed and the same was found to be 5 kilograms. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Respondent No. 1 made the disclosure statement and pursuant to the statement of the respondent No. 1, 25 more packets were recovered. Samples were also drawn from the 25 packets. The contraband was weighed and the same was found to be 5 kilograms. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Respondent No. 1 made the disclosure statement and pursuant to the statement of the respondent No. 1, 25 more packets were recovered. Samples were also drawn from the 25 packets. During investigation, the accused were found involved in trafficking of narcotic drugs and he established the offences against the accused persons during investigation. During cross-examination, the witness has also given statements in detail about the investigation conducted by him. He stated that the accused No. 2 was not arrested by him personally. Aslam Dar was arrested on 27.07.2011. During cross examination by accused No. 1, he stated that the contraband was not weighed before he reached on spot, but he had weighed the contraband. Contraband was weighed by him and ASI-Roldhu Ram. The weighing machine was brought from the Police Station. Weighing machine was electronic. Packets were sealed by him and ASI-Roldhu Ram. Sat Paul was not found involved in the offence. He was satisfied at 8-9 P.M in the night that Sat Paul was not involved in the offence. Sat Paul again came in the Police Station but he cannot say about the date. Darshan and Jai Karan were posted in his Police Station but he does not have any knowledge that both of them were residents of the same village where Sat Paul also used to reside. If Sat Paul has made any statement that he was kept in the Police Station from 19.07.2011 to 21.07.2011 that is wrong. ASI-Kaushal Singh was deputed for depositing the sample with FSL, Jammu. As per his investigation, ASI-Kaushal Singh deposited the samples in FSL, Jammu on 06.08.2011. In the statement of Kaushal Singh recorded on 13.11.2012, it has been stated that samples were deposited with FSL on 27.11.2011 and the same may be correct but that is not mentioned in the CD file. Receipt No. 1123 of FSL is not on record. PW-Pawan Kumar Abrol stated that 37 packets were received in FSL, Jammu on 06.08.2011 through ASI Kaushal Singh. He proved the report and the same was marked as EXT-P-22. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the respondents were acquitted. 11. He proved the report and the same was marked as EXT-P-22. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the respondents were acquitted. 11. Before appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, it needs to be noted that virtually there is no evidence against the respondent No. 2. Whatsoever evidence, if any, that has been led by the prosecution, is only with regard to the respondent No. 1. It is apt to mention here that under NDPS Act, not only the possession of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance has been made an offence but severe punishment has also been provided. In case of commercial quantity, the minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment besides minimum fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs has been provided. It is settled law that more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of the proof. As such, a higher degree of satisfaction would be necessary to convict an accused under the NDPS Act and it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove an offence beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the investigation in the case was absolutely flawless especially with regard to the recovery of the contraband and the link evidence is also the more significant aspect of not only the investigation but also of the trial. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that from the stage of effecting the recovery till the samples reach the laboratory for their analysis, there was no chance of tampering and fiddling with the same and in case it is found that the evidence of safe custody of the samples is lacking then the benefit has to be given to the accused. 12. In the case at hand, the most important witness was PW-Sat Paul, who had taken a lift in the Scorpio bearing registration No. 4283-DL3CAJ from Dayala Chack for Pathankot. The said witness though supported the prosecution during his chief examination but in cross-examination, he took a U-Turn and categorically stated that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief was stated by him because of PWs- Jai Karan and Darshan. The said witness though supported the prosecution during his chief examination but in cross-examination, he took a U-Turn and categorically stated that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief was stated by him because of PWs- Jai Karan and Darshan. It also becomes evident from his testimony that he was kept in custody from 19.07.2011 to 21.07.201 and he was released only after he agreed to be a witness to the occurrence and to the various memos. He also stated that all those documents were signed by him on the same date i.e. when he was released from the custody. This prosecution witness has caused a dent in the whole of the prosecution case. Either the said witness is telling the truth or he was involved in the offence but was let off by the Police. PW Nos. - 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have no doubt supported the prosecution case but there are certain contradictions with regard to the recovery as one of the witnesses has stated that he signed all the documents in the Police Station. More so, there is contradictory evidence with regard to the weighing machine used for the purpose of weighing the contraband, as one witness has stated that the weighing machine was not electronic but others have stated that the weighing machine was electronic. No doubt the statement of the Police witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are police officials but at the same time they are required to be scrutinized carefully so as to rule out any chance of false implication. 13. As this court has already noted that the link evidence is also a very important step not only during the course of investigation but also during the trial. This Court does not find any evidence on record with regard to the seal used for sealing the contraband by the SHO. Though, the supurdnama has been proved but the seal was never produced before the Court and the prosecution too just proved the supurdnama i.e. EXT-P-2/3 formally without putting any question with regard to the custody of the seal. Thus, there is no evidence as to with whom the seal was lying. 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the contraband (12 Packets) was recovered on 19.07.2011 and pursuant to the disclosure statement of the driver, 25 other packets were recovered from the vehicle. Thus, there is no evidence as to with whom the seal was lying. 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the contraband (12 Packets) was recovered on 19.07.2011 and pursuant to the disclosure statement of the driver, 25 other packets were recovered from the vehicle. The samples have been stated to be extracted on the same date itself, but as per the report of the FSL i.e. EXT-P-22, the same were received by FSL, Jammu on 06.08.2011 through ASI-Koushal Singh but there is no evidence that where the samples were kept from 19.07.2011 till they reached the FSL, Jammu. Also though the samples have been stated to be re-sealed on 22.07.2011 by the PW-Avtar Singh yet again there is no evidence as such as to where the samples were kept from 19.07.2011 till 22.07.2011 by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution was under obligation to prove that after the recovery the samples were kept in safe custody till 22.07.2011 when they were produced before the Executive Magistrate for the purpose of re-sealing and further after re-sealing, the samples were again kept in safe custody. There is no extract of Malkhana Register that has been placed on record to prove the safe custody of the samples from 19.07.2011 i.e. the date of recovery till 22.07.2011 i.e. the date of re-sealing and after re-sealing, from 22.07.2011 till 06.08.2011 when the same was sent to FSL, Jammu. Even if, this Court ignores the keeping of the samples in safe custody from 22.07.2011 i.e. the date of re-sealing till 06.08.2011 i.e. the date of deposit with the FSL, but still there is no evidence in the shape of extract of Malkhana Register, that from the date of recovery the samples were kept in safe custody and only those samples were got re-sealed through the Executive Magistrate, those were recovered on 19.07.2011. Even the Incharge Malkhana has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution. It assumes significance in view of lack of any evidence with regard to the custody of seal used by the SHO for the purpose of sealing the samples. 15. Another important aspect that too requires consideration is that the receipt issued by the FSL at the time of deposit of samples has not been produced. It assumes significance in view of lack of any evidence with regard to the custody of seal used by the SHO for the purpose of sealing the samples. 15. Another important aspect that too requires consideration is that the receipt issued by the FSL at the time of deposit of samples has not been produced. Normally non production of the receipt issued by the FSL may not have been of very much significance but fact remains that PW-ASI-Koushal Singh has categorically stated that he delivered the samples in the FSL on 27.12.2011 and further stated that if any receipt is dated 06.08.2011, then the said receipt is wrong. Further, the Investigating Officer-Chanchal Singh has admitted that the statement of Koushal Singh having reference that the samples were deposited with the FSL on 27.07.2011 is correct. Thus, there are three versions with regard to the deposit of samples in the FSL. In FSL report, samples have been stated to be received on 06.08.2011. In statement of PW Koshal Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as admitted by the Investigating Officer-Chanchal Singh, samples were deposited on 27.07.2011 and in his deposition before the Court, PW-Koushal Singh has stated that the samples were deposited on 27.12.2011. It also creates a doubt in the prosecution story. 16. It is well settled that while hearing an acquittal appeal, the Court can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the learned trial court is a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Upendra Pradhan vs State of Orissa, 2015(11) SCC 124 and Vijay Kumar v State th. Inspector General, 2009(12) SCC 629 . 17. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the trial court has considered all the material aspects of the case and after appreciating the evidence has come to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted. We do not find the view of the trial Court contrary to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. We do not find the view of the trial Court contrary to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Rather, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution that was the only course available with the trial court and, as such, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused. Merely on the basis of the same evidence, the other view is also possible, can hardly be a ground to reverse a well reasoned acquittal recorded by the trial court after proper appreciation of the evidence. 18. In view of the above, we do not find any reason, whatsoever, to show indulgence. Therefore, the present appeal is found to be misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. 19. Disposed of. 20. Record of the trial court be sent back.