Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – By judgment dated 20.4.2010 and order dated 21.4.2010 passed in Gaighat P.S. Case No. 122 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 1 of 2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Muzaffarpur, convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for ten months. The aforesaid judgment and order are under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of the Officer-in-Charge, Gaighat Police Station, recorded on 10.6.2008 at 11.30 a.m. in village-Beruwa in which he states that on the same date at about 9.30 a.m. he received a confidential information that Ganja was kept in the house of appellant no. 2 Umesh Ram. He entered the said information in the station diary and in order to verify the genuineness of the information, he proceeded along with the police party to village-Beruwa. At about 10 a.m., they reached to the house of the appellants in village-Beruwa. In the meantime, one lady came out of the house and on seeing the police party tried to escape. However, the police party intercepted her. On inquiry, she disclosed her identity as Jaikal Devi, wife of Umesh Ram. Her house was searched in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Balwant Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Singh. The appellant Umesh Ram was not found inside the house. In course of search from an east facing room, 100 packets of different size containing Ganja were found kept on a ‘chowki’ covered with a bed-sheet. The total weight of the recovered Ganja was 7 quintals and 9 kgs. On inquiry, Jaikal Devi could not give any satisfactory answer for keeping the contraband in such a huge quantity in her house. A seizure list of the recovered Ganja was prepared in presence of the independent witnesses, who put their signature willingly over the same. Jaikal Devi was apprehended and brought to the police station.

3. On the basis of the self-statement of the informant, a formal F.I.R. was drawn, being Gaighat P.S. Case No. 122 of 2008 on 10.6.2008 under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act at 12.30 p.m. against the appellants and the investigation of the case was handed over to P.W. 10 Vinay Kumar Das, a Sub-Inspector of Police. The police investigated the case and submitted its charge sheet pursuant to which, cognizance of the offence was taken. The appellants were charged on 18th February, 2009 for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, in support of the charge, in all, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W.1 Ramashish Kamti is the informant of the case, P.W. 2 Krishna Ram, P.W. 4 Pankaj Kumar, P.W. 5 Srikant Sharma, P.W.6 Manoj Kumar Paswan, P.W. 7 Raghunath Mishra, P.W.8 Abhinay Kumar and P.W. 9 Sanjeev Kumar Singh are the police personnel, who participated in the raid conducted in the house of the appellants. As noted above, P.W. 10 Vinay Kumar Das is the investigating officer of the case, P.W.-3 Balwant Singh and P.W. 4 Pankaj Kumar Singh are the seizure list witnesses. In support of innocence of the appellants, on behalf of the defence three witnesses were examined.

5. P.W. 1 Ramashish Kamti has corroborated his self-statement while deposing in court in examination-in-chief. He has proved his self-statement and the seizure list which have been marked as Ext.-1 & Ext.-2 respectively. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. of the case, which has been marked as Ext. 3. In cross-examination, he refused to reveal the confidential source through which the initial information was received. He admits that he reached to the house of appellants half an hour after receipt of the conf