Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
HARMEET SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 1003/2012, Crl. M.A. No.8986/2015 & CRL.A. 1446/2012
Decided on : 27.08.2015.
Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. With Mr. S.N. Qureshi, Adv.
Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent, coherent, and credible evidence to establish illegal possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) - The court discussed the investigation process, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the importance of cogent and coherent evidence in establishing illegal possession of contraband.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for illegal possession of ganja. The prosecution's version of the events leading to the apprehension and recovery of ganja from the appellants was presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, both oral and documentary, established the illegal possession of ganja by the accused. The court addressed discrepancies in witness testimonies and upheld the conviction under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Issues: The issues included discrepancies in witness testimonies, compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act, and the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of cogent, coherent, and credible evidence in establishing illegal possession of contraband. The court also addressed the minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies and their relevance to the case.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act were upheld. The court reduced the sentence for one appellant but found the appeals to be without merit.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. These appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 12.07.2012 and 25.07.2012 respectively wherein the two appellants have been convicted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (in short NDPS Act); appellant Harmeet Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period two years. Appellant Ashwani has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.5 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period three years.
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2010, SI Surender Singh (PW-10) was marked DD No. 7 which was information to the effect that apprehension and recovery of ganja from two persons near the Durlabh Nath Park, Mangolput Industrial Area had been made. On reaching the spot, constable Shamsher (PW-2), constable Prem (PW-9), constable Ajit (PW-8) and constable Satbeer were present. An Alto Car (which in the course of investigation was found to be in the name of Kuki Devi, the mother of the accused Harmeet Singh proved through its registration Ex.PW-2/J-3 through the version of Bhupender Singh PW-6) was parked there. This car had been stopped by the members who were on patrol duty namely PW-2, PW-8, PW-9 and constable Satbeer. As per this version, during patrolling at about 01:00 pm when they had reached Durlabh Nath Park, the aforenoted Alto car was found near the road. One person was coming out from the car and his movement appeared to be suspicious. The patrolling party accosted the accused. The aforenoted persons revealed their names as Ashwani Kumar and Harmeet Singh. Eight bags of ganja were found lying in rear seat of the car. This information was passed on to the local police station pursuant to which it was marked for investigation which was conducted by PW-10. From the aforenoted black bags, the ganja recovered weighed 142 kgms. From each bag a 50 gm sample was taken out; the remaining contraband and the samples were sealed with the seal of “SS” and thereafter “PSR”. The CFSL form was prepared at the spot. Rukka was sent pursuant to which the present FIR was registered and investigation was initiated. In the course of investigation, CFSL had opined the contraband which had been sent to the CFSL, positive for ganja and being in the commercial bracket, the accused were charge-sheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.
3. On behalf of appellant Ashwani Kumar, arguments have been addressed by the learned senior counsel Mr. Mohit Mathur. On behalf of appellant Harmeet Singh, arguments have been addressed by Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that there are various infirmities in the investigation carried out by the investigating agency and when taken cumulatively as a whole, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. Attention has been drawn to the versions of PW-2, PW-8 & PW-9 who were all members of the raiding party. It is pointed out that the version of PW-2 was that the SHO had come to the spot but this is not the version of the SHO Satish Yadav who had been examined as PW-3. The consistent version of the prosecution is that the SHO had not come to the spot. This discrepancy is irreconcilable. Attention has also been drawn to the deposition of PW-8 who had stated that the contraband was taken to a junk dealer shop for weighing but he did not remember the name of junk shop owner. Submission being reiterated that this is not the version of the prosecution. The version of the prosecution being that the contraband was weighed at the spot. This discrepancy is also unexplained. Submission being that there is also no explanation as to why no public witness had joined when admittedly there were factories in front of the spot where the accused were apprehended; PW-8 had stated that there
