The conviction based on uncorroborated and hostile witness testimonies, along with failure to examine key witnesses, does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.

Heard Mr. Ali Muqtadin Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996 in connection with Sikta (Kangali) P.S. Case No. 06 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C- I, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under Sections 20 -B(ii), 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 20 -B(ii) of the Act and further 10-10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50-50 thousand and on account of non-payment of fine further 6 months, each of simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and both shall run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 21.01.1994 at about 15:00 hours, the informant got information that police is coming for the search and due to fear of police Mansoor Alam, Amanullah Mian and Parvej Alam were fleeing away from the house of Mansoor Alam to conceal a basket. It is further alleged that informant along with Asnarfi Firoj Alam and Ajim caught them near the road. In the meantime, Officer-in- charge of Kangli Police came there and in the presence of witnesses 16 kg of charas were kept in a plastic bag was handed over to the police. On the basis of same, the aforesaid case was instituted on 22.01.1994 at about 10:15 hours against the appellant and two other accused persons.

4. After institution of the present case, the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet under Sections 20 -B(ii), 22 and 23 of the Act against the appellant and two other accused persons, thereafter, on 05.06.1995, cognizance was taken and on 19.08.2005 charges were framed and trial commenced.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, total 13 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused/appellant, out of them, PW-1 Rabindra Singh, PW-2 Jokhu ansari, PW-3 Shamsul Mian, PW-4 Gauri Ram, PW-5 Mahendra Ram, PW-6 Atiullah Mian, PW-7 Firoj Alam, PW-8 Asarfi Sah, PW-9 Mumtaj Khan and PW-10 Md. Mushtafa (informant). The three witnesses who were not examined are IO Tripurari Sharma, SI cum O/C Kangli P.S. Siya Ram Sharma and PW Afsar Mian S/o Md. Sharif Mian.

6. PW-1 to PW-9 were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-1 Ravindra Singh during course of examination deposed that he is neighbor of appellant as such identify him but he had no knowledge about the occurrence as such declared hostile. PW-2 Jokhu Ansari deposed that he is Co- Villager of the appellant as such identifies him but denied to make any statement before the police as such declared hostile, PW-3 Shamsul Mian also repeated the statement of PW-2, PW-4 Gauri Ram deposed that the appellant had enmity with the informant's father Lajeem Mian and nothing had recovered in his presence PW-5 Mahendra Ram deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police nor any thing was recovered in his presence rather he had gone to earn his livelihood at outside of the village. PW-6 Atiullah Mian said that the conduct of the appellant is very good PW-7 Firoz Alam was said to be the seizure list witness