Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sohan Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 259/2009
Decided On : 23.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant :Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent:Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs - Acquittal - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - [Section 20] - The court discussed the prosecution's case against the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and the search, sealing, and seizure proceedings. The court highlighted the lack of evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution charged the accused with possession of narcotics. The police apprehended the accused with a bag containing charas, but the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, leading to his acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused due to inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of evidence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could prove the accused's possession of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements, leading to the failure of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 11.2.2009 rendered by learned Special Judge, Mandi, HP, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2008, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake) has been acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 10.3.2008 at about 9.45 pm, HC Kishan Chand alongwith Constable Padam Singh, LHC Balbir Singh, HHC Padam Singh, HHC Prem Pal and Constable Hitender Kumar was on patrolling and detection of excise and narcotics near Bhiuli bridge. Police party noticed accused with a Pithu on his back coming on the road. Accused tried to turn back. He was apprehended. Accused told them that the Pithu contained charas. Constable Hitender Kumar was sent to call for independent witnesses from the houses Khad side. HC Kishan Chand after offering his search and of other police officials, carried out the search of the bag of the accused in presence of LHC Padam Singh and LHC Balbir Singh. Bag contained four poly packs bearing ‘East Park’ label. Packs contained Charas in the shape of sticks and balls. Charas of poly packs was mixed and it weighed 4.00 kgs. From the mixture, two samples of 25 gms each were taken and sealed with seal impression ‘D’. Bulk of Charas was also sealed in a parcel sealed with seal ‘D’ and specimen of seal impression ‘D; was drawn and NCB forms in triplicate were updated and seal was handed over to HHC Padam Singh. Charas and samples were taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/E. Rukka, Ext. PW- 12/B was prepared and sent to the Police Station. FIR Ext. PW- 10/ was registered. Case property was handed over to SHO Hari Ram and he resealed the same with seal ‘H’ and deposited with MHC Police Station Sadar vide Ext. PW-12/A. Report of FSL Junga is Ext. PW-11/A. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.
3. Prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. He examined two witnesses in his defence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully.
6. PW-1 HHC Padam Singh deposed that they noticed a person coming from Sauli Khad towards Mandi side on foot having a bag on his left shoulder. On seeing the police party, said person tried to run away. Police party apprehended the accused. No person was available at that time on the spot and as such IO Kishan Chand deputed Constable Hitender Kumar towards Sauli Khad in search of independent witnesses. They alongwith accused came towards Bhiuli bridge. Hitender Kumar came back and reported that all the shops were closed. He could not find any independent witnesses. IO asked for the consent of the accused whether he wanted the personal search and search of his bag before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Consent memo is Ext. PW-1/A. Accused consented in writing to be searched by the police vide consent memo Ext. PW-1/A. Police gave their personal search to the accused. Bag of accused was searched. It contained charas in the shape of sticks and balls. It weighed 4.00 kgs. Out of recovered charas, two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with sead ‘D’ (7 in number). Remaining charas was sealed in separate parcel with the same seal impression at 7 places. Specimen seal impression was taken separately. Seal, after use was handed over to him. He did not bring the same since it was lost. IO filled up NCB form in triplicate. Parcel and bag were taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/E.
