Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol & P.S. Rana, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Mal - Respondent
Criminal Appeals No.315 of 2008 and 379 of 2014
Decided On : 22-09-2015
For the State :Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General
For the Respondent/Accused:Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate
The judgment establishes the reliability of police officials' testimony, the legal burden of proof of possession on the accused, and the requirement of careful scrutiny of evidence in NDPS cases.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 20 - [Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985] - The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and allowed the state's appeal for enhancement of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found in possession of charas and was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The state appealed for enhancement of the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused and allowed the state's appeal for enhancement of the sentence.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence, the requirement of independent witnesses, and the nature of possession under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sole testimony of police officials can be reliable and trustworthy, and non-association of independent witnesses does not render the prosecution case fatal. The court also emphasized the legal burden of proof of possession on the accused under the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The accused's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the state's appeal for enhancement of sentence was allowed.
Sanjay Karol, J.
Since both these appeals arise out of the very same impugned judgment, they are being considered and disposed of together.
2. Appellant-convict Suraj Mal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has filed Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014, assailing the judgment dated 23.2.2008/25.2.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh, in NDPS Act case No.02 of 2006, titled as State v. Suraj Mal whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. State has filed Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2008, seeking enhancement of the sentence so imposed by the trial Court.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 16.10.2005, HC Tain Singh (PW-7), HHC Jia Lal (PW-1), Constable Puran Chand (PW-2) and Constable Mukesh Kumar were on patrol and traffic checking duty at Kot Nallah. At 2.15 p.m., they saw one person come towards Darog side. Noticing unusual behaviour, on suspicion, police party apprehended him. On query, he disclosed his name (Suraj Mal) and particulars. He was carrying a polythene bag, which, on suspicion, after apprising him of his statutory rights and obtaining his consent, was searched. From the same, charas weighing 1.250 kg was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn, which were sealed with seal impression ‘H’. Remaining bulk parcel was also packed and sealed separately with the same seal. Specimen of the seal (Ex. PW-1/D) was also drawn. NCB form was filled up in triplicate on the spot. Ruka (Ex.PW-2/A) was sent through Puran Chand (PW-2), on the basis of which FIR No.76, dated 16.10.2005 (Ex. PW- 3/A), for offence under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Accused was arrested. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, case property was entrusted to SI Bhup Ram (PW-3), who resealed the same with his own seal of seal impression ‘X’ and deposited it in the Malkhana, which was kept in safe custody by MHC Hem Raj (PW-5). Sealed samples were taken for analysis to the CTL, Kandaghat and report (Ex. PW-7/E) taken on record. Special report (Ex. PW-4/B) was received in the Office of Dy. S.P. by HC Prakash (PW-4). With the completion of investigation, which, prima facie, revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.
5. Accused was charged for having committed an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took plea of false implication. He also examined one witness in his defence.
7. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence. After considering the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2004, titled as Ram Lal v. State of H.P. and report (Ex. PW-7/E) of the Chemical Examiner, which proved the resin content to be only 27.07% and taking the quantity recovered from the accused to be small and not commercial, sentenced him as aforesaid.
8. Thus, State has filed Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2008 for enhancement of sentence and accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014, assailing his conviction and sentence.
9. Accused has assailed the judgment on the ground that (1) no independent witnesses were associated by the prosecution, which renders the prosecution case to be fatal; (2) number of the FIR so mentioned in the cons
