Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 365 (HP)

Hukam Singh v. State of H. P.

2023-06-22

SANDEEP SHARMA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) 1. Appellant, Hukam Singh, has preferred the present appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.6.2022, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.13/2020 in FIR No.143/2019, dated 11.10.2019, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘ND & PS Act’) registered with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter referred to as the accused, as referred by the learned trial Court. 3. By way of the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.6.2022, the accused has been convicted by the learned trial Court, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the accused has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. The Police of Police Station, Amb, has filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, on the allegations that on 11.10.2019, SI Gurmail Singh, I.O., Police Station, Amb, along with ASI Pawan Kumar, HHC Vijay Kumar, C. Krishan Lal, was on patrolling duty, in official vehicle, being driven by HHG Dinu Ram. At about 2.10 pm, when, the police party was on Koharchham to Spauri road, then, they noticed a bike coming from Koharchham bridge. On noticing the police vehicle, the rider of the bike become perplexed, turned back his bike and made efforts to flee away. Since, he was found to be perplexed, therefore, I.O. overpowered him with the help of other Police officials. 4.2 On noticing the action of the police, the driver of one vehicle No.HP19-E3718 had also stopped his vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, on inquiry by police, had disclosed his name as Rajesh Kumar and the occupant, sitting with him, had disclosed his name as Avtar Chand, Pradhan, G.P. Chawar. Both of them were associated as witness, after obtaining their consent. The driver of the said vehicle, on inquiry by police, had disclosed his name as Rajesh Kumar and the occupant, sitting with him, had disclosed his name as Avtar Chand, Pradhan, G.P. Chawar. Both of them were associated as witness, after obtaining their consent. Thereafter, in the presence of the above two persons, the driver of the bike KTM125 Duke, which was not having any registeration number, on inquiry, disclosed his name as Hukam Singh (accused), resident of village Kannauj, Tehsil and Police Station, Aut, District Mandi. He was carrying a rucksack on his back. Since, the I.O. had developed a suspicion that the rucksack might be containing some illegal thing in it, as such, the same was opened for checking. On checking the same, two carrybags, containing 4 packets of stick shaped substance, were found. When, the wrappers were removed, on the basis of experience, the said substance was found to be ‘charas’. 4.3 When, the contraband, so recovered, was weighed on the electronic weighing scale, then, the same was found to be 1.989 grams. The Charas, so recovered, was put in the same rucksack and the rucksack was put in the cloth parcel, which was sealed with 10 seals of seal ‘T’. NCB-I form was also filled in triplicate on the spot. The seal, after use, was handed over to Avtar Singh. Thereafter, SI Gurmail Singh, also developed a suspicion that the accused might have concealed something on his body, upon which, the options, as per Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, were given to the accused. The accused has opted to be searched by a gazetted officer of the revenue department. Upon which, I.O. requested Manoj Thakur, Tehsildar Amb to come present on the spot. Consequently, Tehsildar Amb, Sh.Manoj Kumar, reached at the spot at 3.15 p.m. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted, but nothing incriminating was found. The investigation, thereafter, was entrusted to I.O./SI Anil Kumar. 4.4 Other codal formalities were completed on the spot and the accused was arrested. 4.5 During investigation, the inventory of the contraband was got prepared from the Court of JMFC, Court No.2, Amb. The sample was sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga. The positive report from SFSL, Junga, regarding the contraband recovered from the possession of the accused, was received and thereafter, the report under Section 173(2) Cr. 4.5 During investigation, the inventory of the contraband was got prepared from the Court of JMFC, Court No.2, Amb. The sample was sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga. The positive report from SFSL, Junga, regarding the contraband recovered from the possession of the accused, was received and thereafter, the report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. 5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, the learned trial Court found, prima facie, case against the accused, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. Consequently, he has been charge-sheeted accordingly vide order dated 20.2.2020. When, the charge, so framed was put to the accused, he has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge framed against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. 6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and took the simplicior defence of false implication, in this case. However, he has not led any evidence, to probablize his defence. 7. When the accused has not opted to lead any evidence, then, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel, has convicted the accused, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act and sentenced him, as referred to above. 8. Aggrieved form the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court, on the ground that there is no trustworthy, cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence adduced by the prosecution on the record, from which, the accused could be connected with the commission of crime, for which, he has been charge-sheeted, in this case. 9. Highlighting the fact that both the independent witnesses, namely Rajesh Kumar, PW-1 and Avtar Singh, PW-2, when appeared in the witness-box, have not supported the case of the prosecution, it is contended that the conviction, which, according to the accused, has been recorded mainly on the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-11, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, both these witnesses are most interested official witnesses. Pointing out the contradictions, which have been occurred in the deposition of PW-4 and PW-11, it has been argued that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of these interested witnesses. 10. Similarly, the contradictions, in the statement of PW-9 have also been highlighted, regarding the manner, in which the Tehsildar, reached on the spot and the manner, in which, the case property was dealt with. 11. Apart from this, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, have also been assailed on the ground that the I.O. has separated two samples of 9 grams and 10 grams. Those samples have not been taken homogeneously, which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and the accused cannot be convicted and sentenced for the quantity of Charas to the extent of 1.989 Kgs. According to the appellant, when the samples have not been drawn homogeneously, then the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced for allegedly possessing of contraband, which has been stated to be recovered from him. 12. On the basis of the above facts, Shri G.R. Palsra & Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the accused, have prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the accused may kindly be acquitted from the offence, for which, he has been charge-sheeted, in this case. 13. The prayer, so made by the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently been opposed by Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, Mr. Y.W. Chauhan & Mr. I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocates General and prayed that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the official witnesses, who have no axe to grind against the accused. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 14. In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, to substantiate, the charge framed against the accused. 15. The accused, in the present case, has been charge-sheeted for allegedly possessing the contraband (Charas) weighing 1.989 Kgs. 16. As stated above, the prosecution, in this case, has examined, as many as 13 witnesses. 17. PW-1 and PW-2 are the independent witnesses, who have been associated by the I.O. in the investigation of the case. 15. The accused, in the present case, has been charge-sheeted for allegedly possessing the contraband (Charas) weighing 1.989 Kgs. 16. As stated above, the prosecution, in this case, has examined, as many as 13 witnesses. 17. PW-1 and PW-2 are the independent witnesses, who have been associated by the I.O. in the investigation of the case. Both these witnesses have simply deposed that on 11.10.2019, at about 2.30 p.m. when they reached at Koarchhan near the bridge, then, they noticed the police party was present there. Police signaled them to stop there. Their names and addresses were inquired by the I.O. PW-1 has disclosed that the police officials, who were present on the spot, had nabbed a person with contraband (Charas) and he was asked to sign some papers. He has identified the accused, as a person, who was nabbed, by the police, on the spot. According to him, they remained, at the spot, for about 45 minutes and thereafter, both of them, had left the spot. 18. Since, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has not deposed, as per the statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, then, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Court, has declared this witness, as hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor has been permitted to cross-examine this witness. 19. In the cross-examination, by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has admitted that both of them were associated in the investigation, by the Police and also admitted that the police had disclosed to them that they have nabbed a person with motorcycle KTM-125 Duke. He has also admitted that the name and address of the said person was inquired by the Police, who had disclosed his name, as Hukam Singh (accused). He has also admitted that on the backseat of the motorcycle, one sky blue colored bag was tied and when, the bag was opened by the police, one yellow packet was found. He has denied that on opening, four bundles of stick candle shaped substance was found, but, admitted that SI-Gurmail Singh, identified the substance to be ‘Charas’. 20. Rest, PW-1, has denied the entire prosecution case, which was put to him, by the learned Public Prosecutor, in his cross-examination. But, at the same time, he has identified his signatures over the memo Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. 20. Rest, PW-1, has denied the entire prosecution case, which was put to him, by the learned Public Prosecutor, in his cross-examination. But, at the same time, he has identified his signatures over the memo Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. He has also admitted that accused Hukam Singh was searched in their presence and during the search, currency notes of Rs. 6910/-, Driving Licence, ATM Cards and Wallet etc., were found. He has also identified his signatures over memo Ext. PW-1/C and Ext. PW- 1/D. When the case property was shown to this witness, then he has admitted his signatures over the parcel Ex.P-1. He has also identified the bag Ex.P-2, Packet containing charas Ex.P-3 and green packet Ex.P-4. However, this witness, has refused to identify the packets containing ‘charas’. 21. In the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-1 has admitted that there were residential houses, at some distance, on both sides of the spot. Vehicular traffic was there, at the spot. He has admitted that shop of his brother is located near Police Station, Amb. The police officials used to hire his vehicle for the official purpose. This witness has met I.O., for the first time, but, the other police officials were known to him. 22. PW-2, has also followed the same way, in which, the PW-1 has deposed. He has admitted that when, he and PW-1 reached at the spot, 4-5 police persons were present there including the accused. Police took signatures on 4-5 documents and on a piece of cloth. No other Government official came on the spot, in their presence. According to them, the police disclosed to them that some substance (maal) has been recovered from the accused. This witness is not aware about the substance. However, he has admitted that he had signed on the documents and a piece of cloth and left the spot. 23. Like PW-1, this witness has also been requested to be declared hostile. Consequently, the request of the learned Public Prosecutor has been acceded to by the learned trial Court and he has been declared hostile. Consequently, the learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined this witness. This witness has admitted his signatures over the memo Ext. PW1/D. He has admitted that being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, he used to sign the documents, after going through the contents of the same. Tehsildar Amb, Sh. Manoj Kumar, is known to him. 24. Consequently, the learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined this witness. This witness has admitted his signatures over the memo Ext. PW1/D. He has admitted that being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, he used to sign the documents, after going through the contents of the same. Tehsildar Amb, Sh. Manoj Kumar, is known to him. 24. Rest, PW-2, has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him, except his signatures over the parcel Ex.P-1, memos Ext. PW1/A Ext. PW1/D. When the photograph Mark P-9 was shown to him, he has admitted that accused can be seen, in the same, searching the I.O., on the spot, in the presence of Tehsildar, Amb. 25. Similarly, PW-2 has admitted that in photograph mark P-7, I.O., can be seen searching the accused in his presence, as well as, in the presence of Tehsildar, Amb and other police officials. Interestingly, he has admitted the suggestion that memo Ex.PW-1/B was prepared in the presence of Tehsildar Sh. Manoj Kumar, by virtue of which, the accused searched the police officials, present on the spot and also searched the I.O. kit. He has admitted his signatures on the sample seal ‘T’, Ex.PW-2/A. When, the case property was shown to him, he has admitted his signature over the parcel Ex.P-1. He has duly identified the parcels Ext. P-2 to P-4. When the contraband was shown to him, he has refused to identify the same. Lastly, he has admitted that, in his presence, Tehsildar, Amb, arrived at the spot. 26. Interestingly, when this witness was cross-examined by learned defence counsel, he has again swayed away with him, and he has admitted that he was again called to the spot and the photographs were clicked. He has also admitted the suggestion that initially, when he left the spot, Tehsildar, Amb, was not present there. He has also admitted that residential houses were there near the spot. He has also admitted that when he reached at the spot, 4-5 persons, including the accused, were already there. 27. PW3, HC Ashok Kumar, has deposed that on 13.10.2019, a special report Ext. PW-3/A was received in the office of SDPO, Amb, which was brought by C. Rahul Dutta No.448. The then SDPO, Amb, Sh. Manoj Jamwal, after making an endorsement of receipt over Ex.PW-3/A, handed over the same to him and he has entered the same at Sr. No.16 of the relevant register. PW-3/A was received in the office of SDPO, Amb, which was brought by C. Rahul Dutta No.448. The then SDPO, Amb, Sh. Manoj Jamwal, after making an endorsement of receipt over Ex.PW-3/A, handed over the same to him and he has entered the same at Sr. No.16 of the relevant register. Copy of the same was given to C. Rahul Dutta. He has proved the extract of the register Ext. PW3/B. 28. PW-11, SI Gurmail Singh, is the I.O. of the case. According to this witness, on 11.10.2019, he, along with the other police officials, was at Koharchham towards Spauri for patrolling duty. At about 2:10 p.m., when, they reached at Koharchham place, then, they noticed a motorcycle coming from Spauri side towards Koharchham bridge. When the said motorcyclist reached at Koharchham bridge, he noticed the police party, then he got perplexed and tried to run away, by turning back his motorcycle. However, he was nabbed. Meanwhile, one Innova Car came there from Spauri side and on seeing the police party, they stopped the car. The names and addresses of the occupants were inquired. The driver disclosed his name, as Rajesh Kumar PW-1 and another occupant disclosed his name, as Avtar Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Chowar, PW-2. In their presence, the name of the motorcyclist was ascertained, who disclosed his name, as Hukam Singh (accused). The registration number of the motorcycle was temporary i.e. HP33-KTM125/2019/909. On the back of the motorcycle, a bag was tied with the back holder. On suspicion, the said bag was opened and on its search, two carry bags, wrapped with cello tape, were recovered. When, the cello tapes, from those carry bags, were removed, four-four packets, wrapped in wrapping papers, were found containing stick like substance, which was found to be ‘Charas’. On weighment, on electronic scale, the recovered ‘Charas’ was found to be 1.989 Kilograms and the same was again put in the same bag. The bag was put in the cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal 'T'. Sample seal was drawn, separately, on a piece of cloth. He has proved the sample seal Ext.PW-2/A. N.C.B Forms Ext.PW-7/D, were filled and seal impression of seal ‘T’ was embossed over it. The seal, after use, was handed over to PW-2 Avtar Singh. He has further deposed that Parcel Ext.P-1 was signed by PW-1, PW-2 and the accused. 29. Sample seal was drawn, separately, on a piece of cloth. He has proved the sample seal Ext.PW-2/A. N.C.B Forms Ext.PW-7/D, were filled and seal impression of seal ‘T’ was embossed over it. The seal, after use, was handed over to PW-2 Avtar Singh. He has further deposed that Parcel Ext.P-1 was signed by PW-1, PW-2 and the accused. 29. The personal search of the accused was required, as such, the accused was apprised about his legal right of being searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. In this regard, consent memo Ext.PW-1/A was prepared. The accused has opted to give his search before the revenue gazetted officer. Consequently, his consent, inside red circle 'C', was obtained over the document Ext. PW-1/A. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Amb, Sh. Manoj Thakur, was telephonically requested to reach the spot, after apprising him, about the facts of the case. 30. Consequently, at about 3.15 pm, Sh. Manoj Thakur, Tehsildar, Amb reached there. The consent memo was produced before him, upon which, Tehsildar, directed him to take the personal search of the accused and before taking the search of accused, search of the police party and I.O. Kit was given to the accused, in the presence of witnesses, Avtar Singh and Rajesh Kumar, but nothing incriminating material was found upon the search of the police party, as well as, the search of the I.O. Kit. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted. Nothing incriminating was found from the personal search of accused. 31. The photography, was got conducted, on the spot through C. Krishan Kumar. Thereafter, Tehsildar, Amb, Manoj Thakur, left the spot. The case property was taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW-1/D. Thereafter, Rukka Ex.PW-7/C was prepared and was sent through C. Krishan Lal No.123 to the Police Station, for registration of FIR and S.H.O., was requested to sent another I.O., for further investigation, upon which, SI/IO-Anil Kumar along with LC-Anita reached at the spot. PW-11, prepared the inventory list Ext. PW-11/A and handed over the case property, along with documents, accused and motorcycle along with its key to SI-Anil Kumar for further investigation. Memo Ext.PW-11/A was prepared. He has proved the photographs Ext. PW-3/A-1 to Ext. PW-3/A-9. PW-11, prepared the inventory list Ext. PW-11/A and handed over the case property, along with documents, accused and motorcycle along with its key to SI-Anil Kumar for further investigation. Memo Ext.PW-11/A was prepared. He has proved the photographs Ext. PW-3/A-1 to Ext. PW-3/A-9. He has duly identified the case property, which has been shown to him, in the Court and categorically deposed that it was the same, which was recovered from the accused and sealed on the spot. 32. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that there are 2-3 villages in between Koharchhan and Karlochi. 2 - 3 vehicles had crossed from there on the spot. 2-3 motorcycles were also noticed, on the way. The police party noticed the motorcycle of the accused, at a distance of 50-60 meters. There was no abadi near the spot. The Police has stopped the vehicle at a distance of 5-7 feet from the motorcycle of the accused. Firstly, the seizure memo was prepared, at about 2:30 p.m. Thereafter, the photograph Ext. PW-3/A-1 was clicked. Ext. PW-3/A-2 was the second photograph, clicked on the spot by C. Krishan Lal. He has admitted that there is no photograph clicked at the time, when he had taken out the contraband from the bag of the accused. The weighing scale was with him in the I.O. Kit. Seizure memo Ext. PW-1/D was prepared, before the arrival of Tehsildar. Similarly, the consent memo Ext.PW-1/A was prepared, prior to the arrival of Shri Manoj Thakur, Tehsildar, Amb. He has also admitted that the option to search the vehicle of the police, was not given to the accused. Memo Ext.PW-1/B was scribed by ASI- Pawan Kumar, under his dictation. 33. The personal search of the accused was conducted, by PW-11, in the presence of Tehsildar and witnesses. The personal search of the accused was conducted, on the direction of the Tehsildar, but this fact has not specifically been mentioned in the documents Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C. NCB forms were already completed before the arrival of Tehsildar. Parcel was also prepared before the arrival of Tehsildar. Seal impression 'T' was embossed upon NCB forms, before taking seal sample. He has admitted that the addresses of the witnesses are not written over Ex.PW-2/A. 34. Rukka was prepared, after preparation of seizure memo. Rukka was prepared in duplicate. The I.O. took about 2.5 hours for conducting the proceedings before preparing rukka. Seal impression 'T' was embossed upon NCB forms, before taking seal sample. He has admitted that the addresses of the witnesses are not written over Ex.PW-2/A. 34. Rukka was prepared, after preparation of seizure memo. Rukka was prepared in duplicate. The I.O. took about 2.5 hours for conducting the proceedings before preparing rukka. Sl-Anil Kumar had reached at the spot at about 4:50 p.m. Thereafter, PW-11 left the spot, after handing over the case property, along with documents and accused, as well as motorcycle, to Sl-Anil Kumar. 35. PW-4, C Krishan Kumar, was also associated in the investigation of the case. In the examination-in-chief, this witness has supported the version of the I.O., on almost all material facts of the case. He has deposed that the I.O. has prepared the Rukka Ex.PW-7/C and handed over to him to take the same to Police Station, Amb. Accordingly, he has handed over the same to MHC Police Station, Amb. On his return to the spot, he has handed over the case file to the I.O., on the spot. 36. Apart from this, PW-4 has deposed that the photographs were clicked by him. Like the I.O., he has also identified the case property, parcel Ext. P1, bag Ext. P2, Charas Ext. P3 and P4, as well as, the packet containing the charas Ext. P5 and P6. According to this witness, the accused was spotted coming on the motorcycle by the police party, at a distance of about 50 meters. The accused was nabbed by the police party, after alighting from the vehicle. Firstly, the accused was inquired. In the meantime, witnesses arrived on the spot, in a car. Thereafter, their names and addresses were inquired. Thereafter, the bag carried by the accused, on his motorcycle, was opened and searched. 37. The first document, which was prepared, after about 30 minutes of nabbing the accused, on the spot, was consent memo. The other documents qua search of accused were prepared later on. Tehsildar arrived at the spot. The accused was personally searched, after about 10 minutes, of the arrival of the Tehsildar. He could not disclose about the name of the scribe of the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. However, according to him, document Ex.PW1/D was prepared at about 3:45 PM. This witness reached the Police Station with rukka by taking lift, in some vehicle. The accused was personally searched, after about 10 minutes, of the arrival of the Tehsildar. He could not disclose about the name of the scribe of the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. However, according to him, document Ex.PW1/D was prepared at about 3:45 PM. This witness reached the Police Station with rukka by taking lift, in some vehicle. When the proceedings were going on, on the spot, few vehicles crossed the spot. Rukka and seizure memo were scribed by I.O. Gurmail Singh. PW-4 handed over the case file to the I.O. at CHC, Amb because I.O. along with other police officials and accused has already left the spot to CHC, Amb, for medico legal examination of the accused. This witness could not disclose the time, when, he has handed over the case file to I.O. 38. PW-5, HHC Mangal Singh, was deputed by SHO Police Station, Amb to SFSL, Junga to bring the result/report along with the case property. Consequently, he has brought back the case property with result and handed over the same to MHC, Police Station, Amb. 39. PW6 Gaurav Sharma, deposed that in the month of October, 2019, C. Krishan Lal, came to his studio and directed him to develop the photographs, clicked by him, with the help of his mobile phone. Accordingly, he has developed the photographs Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-9. Similarly, he was directed to develop the photographs regarding inventory proceedings conducted by the Police in this case. Consequently, those photographs were developed, which are proved by him, as P6/1 to P6/4. 40. PW7 Gaurav Bhardwaj, was posted, as S.H.O. Police Station, Amb, at the relevant time. On 11.10.2019, rukka Ex.PW-7/A was received through C. Krishan Lal, upon which, he instructed M.H.C., for registration of FIR in computer system. Consequently, FIR Ext.PW-7/B was registered and case file was prepared and sent back to the spot through C. Krishan Lal. On the same day, at about 7:57 p.m., SI Anil Kumar, submitted one cloth parcel, which was sealed with 10 seals of seal 'T', NCB forms in triplicate, one sample seal 'T' along with case file and accused. After verifying the cloth parcel, this witness has resealed the same, with six seals of seal 'X'. On the same day, at about 7:57 p.m., SI Anil Kumar, submitted one cloth parcel, which was sealed with 10 seals of seal 'T', NCB forms in triplicate, one sample seal 'T' along with case file and accused. After verifying the cloth parcel, this witness has resealed the same, with six seals of seal 'X'. Sample seal Ex.PW-7/C was also obtained, by this witness and he has also filled the relevant column of N.C.B Forms, in triplicate Ex.PW-7/D. Certificate of reseal, Ex.PW-7/E was prepared and thereafter the case property along with N.C.B forms and sample seal were deposited with M.H.C Police Station, Amb. He has also deposed that he has made the endorsement on rukka, Ex.PW-7/F and after completion of investigation, challan was prepared by him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the rukka was received, in Police Station, at about 6:06 p.m., and FIR was thereafter registered in the computer by the M.H.C. He has admitted that at the time of registration of FIR, a separate Daily Diary entry was made by the M.H.C. The said entry No.42 has not been placed on the file. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him, by the learned counsel for the accused. 41. PW-8, HC Rahul Dutta, took the special report under Section 57 of ND&PS Act, which was given to him by SI Gurmail Singh, I.O. Consequently, he submitted the same to SDPO, Amb. On the same day, vide R.C. No.139/2019, Ext. PW-8/A, a cloth parcel sealed with two seals of seal impression ‘SJ-cum-SDJM Amb’, stated to be containing 10 grams of ‘Charas’, was handed over to him, along with docket, FIR, NCB Form and copy of inventory with a direction to deliver the same to SFSL, Junga. Consequently, he deposited the above articles with SFSL Junga, on 14.10.2019. On 16.10.2019, he had re-deposited the receipt to M.H.C., Police Station, Amb. 42. PW-9, Jagpal Singh, has deposed that on 11.10.2019, Rapat No.022 Ex. PW- 9/A, Rapat No.031, Ex.PW-9/B, Rapat No.047 Ex.PW-9/C, Rapat No. 048 Ex.PW-9/D, and Rapat No.052 Ex.PW-9/E, were entered by him, in the computer system of Police Station, Amb. On 12.10.2019, Rapat No.034, Ex. PW-9/F and Rapat No.046 Ex. PW-9/G were entered by him, in the computer system at Police Station, Amb. On 13.10.2019, Rapat No.023, Ex.PW-9/H and Rapat No.036, Ex.PW-9/3, were entered by him, in the computer system of Police Station, Amb. On 12.10.2019, Rapat No.034, Ex. PW-9/F and Rapat No.046 Ex. PW-9/G were entered by him, in the computer system at Police Station, Amb. On 13.10.2019, Rapat No.023, Ex.PW-9/H and Rapat No.036, Ex.PW-9/3, were entered by him, in the computer system of Police Station, Amb. On 16.10.2019, Rapat No.017, Ex.PW-9/K, on 27.11.2019, Rapat No.004, Ex.PW-9/L, on 29.11.2019, Rapat No.044, Ex. PW-9/M were entered by him, in the computer system of Police Station, Amb. He has also issued requisite certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW-9/N. 43. On 11.10.2019, Inspector/SHO Gaurav Bhardwaj deposited one cloth parcel sealed with 10 seals of seal impression 'T', six seals of seal impression 'X', stated to be containing, one sky blue bag, containing two carry bags of yellow and green colour, further containing 4 - 4 bundles, total eight bundles of ‘Charas’ wrapped with cello tap, weighing 1.989 Kgs. Along with sample seal, NCB Forms in triplicate. These articles were entered in the relevant register at serial No.1045/2019. On the same day, i.e. 11.10.2019, SI Anil Kumar deposited one black, white and orange colour motorcycle Make KTM along with its keys, as well as, articles recovered from the ‘Jamatlashi’ of accused Hukam Singh. All these articles were entered in the Malkhana register at serial No.1044/2019. 44. On 12.10.2019, the case property was taken out from the Malkhana and handed over to Sl Anil Kumar for preparation of inventory under Section 52-A of the Act. After preparation of inventory, two parcels containing sample of 10 grams Mark-Y and sample of 9 grams Mark-X, bearing two seals each of seal impression ‘SJ-cum-SDJM Amb’, were deposited with him. On the same day, one cloth parcel sealed with 10 seals of seal impressions ‘T’, six seals of seal impression 'X' and five seals of seal impression ‘SJ-cum-SDJM Amb’, containing the remaining 'Charas' was deposited in the Malkhana, regarding which, he has made the relevant entry in the Malkhana Register. 45. On 13.10.2019 vide R.C. No.139/2019, Ex. PW-8/A, one cloth parcel, Mark-Y, containing 10 grams of Charas, sealed with two seals of seal impression ‘SJ-cum-SDJM, Amb’, along with sample seal, NCB forms in triplicate, inventory certificate, copy of FIR and copy of memo, were sent to SFSL Junga for chemical analysis through C. Rahul Dutta No.448. On 27.11.2019, HHC Mangal Singh, was deputed to SFSL, Junga to bring the sample of ‘Charas’ and result of chemical analysis. On 27.11.2019, HHC Mangal Singh, was deputed to SFSL, Junga to bring the sample of ‘Charas’ and result of chemical analysis. On his return, HHC Mangal Singh, brought one sealed envelope along with cloth parcel containing sample of Charas bearing three seals of FSL-II and two seals of ‘SJ-cum-SDJM Amb. The said articles were duly entered in the Malkhana Register. He has proved the copy of Malkhana register as Ex.PW-9/O, abstract of Malkhana register Ex.PW-9/E and abstract of R.C. Ex.PW-8/A. This witness has further deposed that he has not mentioned the time regarding receiving of the case property, at serial No.1044/2019. He has qualified his statement by deposing that the same was entered on 11.10.2019 at 7:57 p.m. Two sample seals 'T' and 'X' were deposited with him, by S.H.O. When the case property was sent to SFSL Junga, three samples seals T, X, and ‘SJ-cum-SDJM, Amb’ along with case property, were sent. 46. PW-10, Harish Kumar, has proved the Sale certificate of Motorcycle KTM 125 Duke, according to which, the same has been sold to Hukam Singh (Accused) son of Ghameer Dass, R/O Kanauj. He proved the temporary certificate of registration Ex.PW- 10/A and copy of Insurance Ext. PW-10/B. 47. PW-12, Manoj Thakur, S.D.M, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, was posted as Tehsildar, Sub Division, Amb, at the relevant time. According to him, On 11.10.2019, at about 2:00 p.m., he has received a telephonic call from Gurmail Singh, I.O., with a request that they had apprehended one person with Charas near Koharchhan bridge and they want to conduct the personal search of said person. Consequently, he has reached, at the spot, at about 3:15 p.m. On the spot, accused Hukam Singh, SI Gurmail Singh along with police officials and witnesses Avtar Singh and Rajesh Kumar, were present. 48. The contraband sealed, in a cloth parcel, was kept over the bonnet of the police vehicle. PW-12 has been apprised that new motorcycle has been used by the accused for transporting the contraband. Thereafter, SI Gurmail Singh produced consent memo before him, upon which, the accused Hukam Singh, has given his consent, for search to be conducted by a gazetted officer. Thereafter, he has inquired from accused Hukam Singh, for his personal search, upon which, he agreed for his personal search. On the said memo, he made his endorsement at the portion 'D' encircled red. Thereafter, he has inquired from accused Hukam Singh, for his personal search, upon which, he agreed for his personal search. On the said memo, he made his endorsement at the portion 'D' encircled red. Thereafter, he directed accused Hukam Singh to search the police officials, I.O. Kit, as well as, witnesses Avtar Singh and Rajesh Kumar. During the search of the above persons by the accused, nothing incriminating was found. Memo Ex.PW-1/B, was prepared, in this regard, which was signed by accused Hukam Singh and police officials, as well as, PW-1 and PW-2. Thereafter, he has directed the I.O., to conduct the search of accused Hukam Singh. During search, nothing incriminating was found except currency notes, Driving Licence, ATM and Adhar Card etc. In this regard, memo Ex.PW-1/C was prepared, which was endorsed by him. Photographs Ex.PW-3/A-5, PW-3/A-7 to Ext. PW-3/A-9, were clicked, on the spot. 49. In the cross-examination, PW-12 has deposed that he received a telephonic information, at about 2:00 p.m., and he left the office at about 2:30 p.m. Consent memo was already prepared by the I.O. Endorsement was put, by him, over the consent memo at about 3:15 p.m. He has not given written direction on memo Ex.PW-1/B, for conducting the search of the police officials, by the accused. This direction was given orally. This witness has shown his inability to depose about the exact time, when the memo Ex.PW-1/B, was prepared. Accused, firstly searched SI Gurmail Singh, and thereafter other officials were searched. The proceedings of memo Ex.PW- 1/C were completed at about 5.10 p.m. His statement was recorded on 20.12.2019, by SI Gurmail Singh. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him, by learned counsel for the accused. 50. PW-13, Inspector/SHO, Anil Kumar, has partly investigated the case. On 11.10.2019, at about 3:43 p.m., SI Gurmail Singh, informed him that one person was nabbed, by the Police, at place Koharchhan with contraband and motorcycle KTM. Upon this information, he along with LHC-Anita Devi No.13 reached there. They have recorded their departure report, in Daily Diary No.31 Ex.PW-9/B. On the spot, I.O., along with other police officials, independent witnesses Rajesh Kumar, Avtar Singh, and accused Hukam Singh, along with contraband, were present there. Upon this information, he along with LHC-Anita Devi No.13 reached there. They have recorded their departure report, in Daily Diary No.31 Ex.PW-9/B. On the spot, I.O., along with other police officials, independent witnesses Rajesh Kumar, Avtar Singh, and accused Hukam Singh, along with contraband, were present there. SI Gurmail Singh handed over him, the inventory list, along with documents i.e., memo of recovery of contraband, motorcycle KTM A/F along with documents and its keys, consent memo of personal search under Section 50 of ND&PS, memo of personal search of police officials, I.O. kit, memo of personal search of accused Hukam Singh, cloth parcel sealed with 10 seals of seal impression 'T', NCB form in triplicate and sample seal. In this regard, memo Ex.PW-11/A, was prepared and on the said memo, he has signed, as receiver of the goods, whereas, SI Gurmail Singh has appended his signature, as handing over the above articles. Thereafter, Sl Gurmail Singh, shown him the spot and prepared the spot map, which is Ex.PW-13/A. 51. PW-13 has recorded the statements of witnesses Rajesh Kumar Ex.PW-13/B and Avtar Singh Ex.PW-13/C. The accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW-13/D. Thereafter, accused was taken to Civil Hospital, Amb for his medical examination and MLC was obtained from Medical Officer. Thereafter, they reached Police Station, Amb, along with accused Hukam Singh, cloth parcel containing charas, motorcycle and the police file. The accused, along with case file, contraband and other documents, was produced before S.H.O., Gaurav Bhardwaj. After verifying the cloth parcel and the case file, S.H.O. Gaurav Bhardwaj, resealed the cloth parcel with six seals of seal impression 'X' and filled the relevant columns of N.C.B form and also embossed the seal impression 'X' on it. The sample seal 'X' was taken on a separate piece of cloth, which is Ex.PW-7/C. Thereafter, certificate of resealing Ex.PW-7/E, was prepared and handed over to him. The sample seals, cloth parcel, N.C.B form were deposited with MHC Jagpal. Accused was interrogated by S.H.O., Gaurav Bhardwaj and he was put in the lockup. 52. On 12.10.2019, accused Hukam Singh was produced before the learned ACJM, Amb, and his remand was obtained. On the same day, application, Ex.PW-13/E, for preparation of inventory, under Section 52-A of ND&PS Act, was moved by him before learned ACJM, Amb. Accused was interrogated by S.H.O., Gaurav Bhardwaj and he was put in the lockup. 52. On 12.10.2019, accused Hukam Singh was produced before the learned ACJM, Amb, and his remand was obtained. On the same day, application, Ex.PW-13/E, for preparation of inventory, under Section 52-A of ND&PS Act, was moved by him before learned ACJM, Amb. Thereafter, the certificate of inventory was issued by the learned Court, which is Ex.PW-13/F. The inventory proceedings were photographed. The photographs were proved by him as Exts.PW-13/G-1 to PW-13/G-4. During the inventory proceedings, two samples were separated from the seized ‘Charas’. The said samples were 9 grams and 10 grams, respectively. The same were put into the parcels, separately, which were marked, as Mark-X and Mark-Y. Thereafter, those parcels were sealed with two seals of seal impression ‘SJ-cum-SDJM Amb’. To this effect, order Ex.PW-13/H, was passed. 53. After preparation of the inventory, the cloth parcel and sample parcels, were brought back and handed over to M.H.C., Police Station, Amb. 54. On 13.10.2019, special report Ex.PW-3/A, was prepared and same was sent through C. Rahul Dutta No.448 to the SDPO, Amb. After handing over the special report to SDPO, Amb, one endorsed copy was handed over to him. On 14.10.2019, search warrant, Ex.PW-13/K, of the house of the accused was obtained. On 15.10.2019, the house of the accused, was searched and in the search of the house, one Jamabandi, copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle No.HP66-5860 and Registration Certificate of vehicle No.HP23-0087, were recovered. 55. Rest, PW-13 has deposed about the manner, in which, he has recorded the statements of the other witnesses. He has duly identified the case property, which has been shown to him in the Court. 56. In the cross-examination, PW-13 has deposed that MHC disclosed to him that a message has been received by him from SI Gurmail Singh to send the I.O., and he was deputed for further investigation. LHC Anita Devi was with him. They reached, at the spot, within 15 - 20 minutes. PW-1 and PW-2, were present there. PW-12, Tehsildar Sh. Manoj Thakur, was not present there. SI Gurmail Singh, was present, at the spot. SI Gurmail Singh, left the spot, at about 5/5:30 p.m. The statements of witnesses, Avtar and Rajesh Kumar, were recorded, in the presence of SI Gurmail Singh. On the spot, arrest memo Ext.PW-13/D, was dictated by him to ASI Pawan Kumar. PW-12, Tehsildar Sh. Manoj Thakur, was not present there. SI Gurmail Singh, was present, at the spot. SI Gurmail Singh, left the spot, at about 5/5:30 p.m. The statements of witnesses, Avtar and Rajesh Kumar, were recorded, in the presence of SI Gurmail Singh. On the spot, arrest memo Ext.PW-13/D, was dictated by him to ASI Pawan Kumar. He could not disclosed about the mobile phone, upon which, he has informed the brother of the accused nor could he disclosed the exact time, when the information was conveyed to the brother of accused. Statement of Tehsildar, Manoj Thakur, was recorded, in his office, on 20.12.2019. The articles, recovered from the personal search of the accused, were deposited in the Malkhana at about 8.17 p.m. This is the entire evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 57. The accused, in the present case, has been charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. 58. Strict punishment has been provided for the offences under the ND&PS Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as 2009(1) Criminal Court Cases, page 230, titled Noor Agah versus State of Punjab and others; have mandated that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. The relevant para-16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “16. The provisions of the Act and the punishment prescribed therein being indisputably stringent flowing from elements such as a heightened standard for bail, absence of any provision for remission, specific provisions for grant of minimum sentence enabling provisions granting power to the Court to impose fine of more than maximum punishment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as also the punishment of guilt emerging from possession of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution, i.e. “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” would be more onerous. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. It is so because whereas, on the one hand, the court must strive towards giving effect to the parliamentary object and intent in the light of the international conventions, but, on the other, it is also necessary to upheld the individual human right and dignity as provided for under the U.N. declaration of Human Rights by insisting upon scrupulous compliance of the provisions of the Act for the purpose of upholding the democratic values. It is necessary forgiving effect to the concept of’ wider civilization.’ The Courts must always remind itself that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof. A higher degree of assurance, thus, would be necessary to convict an accused.” 59. This is no longer res integra that where the legislature provided the strict punishment, the prosecution is duty bound to prove each and every ingredient to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond any shadow of doubt. 60. In the present case, the I.O., has associated two independent witnesses. However, both the witnesses, when appeared in the witness-box, have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Despite of the best efforts made by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be elicited from them. 61. It is no longer res integra that the conviction can be based upon the testimonies of the official witnesses, if inspire confidence. In other words, if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is having a ring of truth in it, then there is no legal hesitation in convicting the accused, on the basis of the statement of the official witnesses. The law treats the official witnesses, on par with the independent witnesses. 62. In this case, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, inspire confidence or the same is having ring of truth in it. 63. The star witness of the prosecution, in the present case, is the I.O., PW-11. According to this witness, when they reached the spot at about 2.10 p.m., then they noticed a motorcyclist coming from Spauri side and was moving towards Koharchham side. The said person, according to him, was nabbed as he got perplexed, on seeing the police party and has made an attempt to flee away. According to this witness, when they had nabbed the accused, meanwhile, one Innova Car reached there from Spauri side and on seeing the police party, they had stopped their car. Those two persons were associated in the investigation of the case by the I.O. They have been examined by the prosecution, as PW-1 and PW-2. 64. According to this witness, when they had nabbed the accused, meanwhile, one Innova Car reached there from Spauri side and on seeing the police party, they had stopped their car. Those two persons were associated in the investigation of the case by the I.O. They have been examined by the prosecution, as PW-1 and PW-2. 64. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was nabbed at the Bridge, whereas, in the spot map Ex.PW-13/A, the place, where the accused was nabbed, has been shown as ‘X’, which is not on the bridge, but, on the other side of the bridge. 65. The initial investigation, in the present case, was conducted by SI Gurmail Singh, who appeared, in the witness-box, as PW-11. According to this witness, rukka Ex.PW-7/C was prepared, by him, after taking into possession, the parcel containing charas along with NCB form in triplicate, Motorcycle along with key and temporary RC/Insuance, vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. The rukka was given to C. Krishan Lal, with a direction to submit the same to SHO, Police Station, Amb. Further, this witness has deposed that when SI Anil Kumar, along with LHC Anita, reached at the spot, he prepared inventory list Ex.PW-11/A and handed over the case property, along with documents, accused, Motorcycle along with key to SI Anil Kumar for further investigation. Meaning thereby, after the execution of the document Ex.PW-11/A, everything has been handed over to SI/I.O. Anil Kumar. Although, in this documents, the timing of preparation of this inventory, has not been mentioned, but, as per the deposition of PW-13, SI/I.O. Anil Kumar, SI Gurmail Singh left the spot at about 5-5.30 p.m. 66. The FIR, in question, on the basis of rukka, was registered at 5.45 p.m. The document, Ex.PW-7/D, was allegedly filled up by I.O./SI Gurmail Singh, prior to sending the rukka to Police Station for registration of FIR. Meaning thereby, till the alleged time of filling this document, SI Gurmail Singh, was not aware about the registration of the FIR, which, admittedly, was registered at about 5.45 p.m., on the basis of rukka Ex.PW-7/A. Then, how the FIR number, came to be written in the same flow, in which, the other contents have been filled, is a question, which creates doubt about the authenticity of this document. If, in fact, this document was prepared, as deposed by PW-11 Gurmail Singh, then the FIR number should have been written with red ink. As per SI Anil Kumar, I.O. Gurmail Singh, left the spot at about 5-5.30 p.m. Meaning thereby, when he had left the spot, he was not having the FIR number with him, as such, the factum of mentioning the FIR number, in the NCB form, Ex.PW-7/D, gives an occasion for this Court to hold that the things were not happened, on the spot, as deposed by the official witnesses. 67. Another fact, which has also been highlighted, by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in this case, is that the documents, which were allegedly prepared by the I.O. Gurmail Singh, on the spot, are Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C, Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-11/A, Ex.PW-13/A, Ex.PW-13/D. In all these documents, the column meant for FIR number, has been filled in with red ink, but, entire evidence of the prosecution is silent about the fact that, as to who had entered the FIR number, in these documents. Admittedly, SI Gurmail Singh, handed over the investigation, along with the entire case file to SI Anil Kumar vide inventory Ex.PW-7/A and according to SI Anil Kumar, he left the spot, at about 5-5.30 p.m. 68. The person, who took the rukka to the Police Station, has been examined, by the prosecution, as PW-4. According to PW-4, when the rukka was given to him, with a direction to submit the same to SHO, Police Station, Amb, he handed over the same to MHC Police Station, Amb and he has submitted the case file to the I.O., on the spot. This fact has been deposed by him, in the examination-in-chief, whereas, in his cross-examination, he has given a different version, by deposing that he has submitted the case file to the I.O. at CHC, Amb, because the I.O., along with other Police officials and accused, had left the spot to CHC, Amb for medico legal examination of the accused. Similarly, he could not disclose about the time, when, he has submitted the case file to the I.O. 69. The above deposition of PW-4, does not find corroboration from the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, as there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that the accused was taken to CHC Amb, at the relevant time, for his medico legal examination. The above deposition of PW-4, does not find corroboration from the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, as there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that the accused was taken to CHC Amb, at the relevant time, for his medico legal examination. When the deposition is not supported by the oral, as well as, the documentary evidence, then an adverse inference is bound to be drawn, by holding that the real picture has been withheld from the scrutiny of the Court, by the material witnesses, for the reasons best known to them. 70. Neither PW-11, SI Gurmail Singh nor PW-13 Inspector Anil Kumar, who has partly investigated the case, have deposed about this material fact, as to who had entered the FIR number, in the above documents. 71. According to PW-11, SI Anil Kumar reached the spot at about 4.50 p.m. and thereafter, after handing over the case property, along with documents, this witness has left the spot. His deposition is also silent, qua the fact that, as to who has filled the FIR number, in all the material documents. 72. PW-13 has deposed about the arrest memo, which he had prepared, at the time of arrest of the accused. The said memo is on the file as EX.PW-13/D. In this document, the time of arrest of the accused, has been mentioned as 6.15 p.m., at a place near Koharchham bridge, Amb. This witness has also not deposed about the material fact that after receiving the case file, after registration of FIR, when PW-4 submitted the file to him, he filled the FIR number in the documents, which were allegedly prepared by PW-11, at the spot. 73. As stated above, strict punishment has been provided for the offences punishable under the ND & PS Act, as such, it was obligatory on the official witnesses to depose about all the material facts and their non-deposition, raises suspicion in the story of the prosecution. 74. Another fact, which has been highlighted, by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in this case, is about the fact that according to PW-13, after taking over the investigation from SI Gurmail Singh, he has firstly prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of PWs Rakesh Kumar, Ex.PW-13/B and Avtar Singh, Ex.PW-13/C, as per their version. 74. Another fact, which has been highlighted, by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in this case, is about the fact that according to PW-13, after taking over the investigation from SI Gurmail Singh, he has firstly prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of PWs Rakesh Kumar, Ex.PW-13/B and Avtar Singh, Ex.PW-13/C, as per their version. Perusal of their statements, which were allegedly recorded by PW-13, prior to arrest of the accused, which according to the arrest memo Ex.PW-13/D, at about 6.15 p.m., then how the FIR No.143 of 2019 has been found to be mentioned in these documents, that too, in the blue ink, is a fact, which is sufficient to create suspicion in the case of the prosecution. At the cost of repetition, in all other documents, which have been referred to above, FIR No.143, has been mentioned with red ink. 75. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that non-disclosure of the material fact that, who had entered the FIR number as 143 of 2019, in all the above documents, gives an occasion for this Court to draw an inference that the things were not happened, on the spot, as deposed by the official witnesses. 76. Considering, all these facts, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, learned trial Court has fallen into error, while convicting the accused for the offences, for which, he has been charge-sheeted. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.6.2022, passed in Sessions Case Number 13/2020 by learned trial Court, are set aside. Appellant, who is in custody, since the day of his arrest, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 77. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC, appellant, is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 78. Release warrant be prepared accordingly. 79. Record be sent back.