Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Pardeep Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 115 of 2009
Decided On : 10.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Naveen K Bhardwaj, Advocate.
The judgment underscores the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the importance of following legal procedures to ensure the admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs - Acquittal under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of heroin from the accused's possession, but the trial court found the evidence lacking and acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of the official witnesses and highlighted the lack of independent witnesses at the site of the recovery. The court also pointed out the failure to follow the legal procedures for conducting a personal search of the accused, which invalidated the evidence of recovery. As a result, the court upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 21 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the need for corroborative evidence in drug-related cases. The court also stressed the significance of following legal procedures, such as conducting a valid personal search, to ensure the admissibility of evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused was maintained and affirmed.
Per Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered on 30.8.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, in Sessions trial No. 9 of 2007, whereby the latter Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.9.2005 HC Harinder Singh, (PW-7) along with Constable Hans Raj, PW-1 was on patrol duty on motorcycle. At about 5.30 AM when they reached at Bus stand, Mandi HRTC bus No.HP-68-0482, enroute from Delhi to Manali stopped there and a person alighted from the bus from the rear door, who was carrying a poly bag in his hand and on seeing the police officials he started moving back. They chased the said person and nabbed him. On suspicion his poly bag was searched and jacket Ext.P.10, mobile phone Ext.P.11 and blue coloured packet Ext.P.2 were recovered from the poly bag. When the packet Ext.P.2 was searched, it was found containing poly packets Ext.P.3 and P.4. The poly packets were wrapped with tape and on theirs being opened, brownish coloured smack round in shape of different sizes was recovered, which was weighing about 15-20 grams. The said smack was taken into possession along with other articles vide recovery memo Ext.PA, which was signed by the Investigating Officer, as well as Constable Hans Raj and accused. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his name as Pradeep Kumar. Thereafter, Ruka Ext.PB was prepared and sent through Constable Hans Raj for registration of the case to Police Station, Sadar, Mandi. On the basis of which FIR Ext.PO was registered. The site plan Ext.PP was prepared. As there was no arrangement for weighing the contraband, the accused along with contraband was brought in the shop of Suresh Kumar, Jeweller, Moti Bazar, Mandi. Thereafter, the contraband was weighed and found to be 20 grams. Two samples of 5 grams each were taken out from the contraband and sealed with seal having impression T. Remaining contraband Ext.P.5 was also sealed with seal impression T in parcel Ext.P.1 along with two poly packets Exts.P.3 and P.4, which were put in blue bag Ext.P.2. Signatures of accused along with witnesses Hans Raj and Pappi Kumar on both the sample sealed parcels were taken. The accused was informed about his arrest vide Memo Ext. PQ and his personal search was also carried out vide memo Ext. PR. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. Two sealed samples along with specimen seals and NCB form along with other documents were sent to CTL, Kandaghat vide RC No.158/2005 through Constable Param Dev for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat Ext. PK was received, in which the traces of Heroin have been detected in the contraband. After completion of the investigation, challan, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court.
3. The trial Court charged the accused for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused was given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence which he chose to avail, however, later refused to avail it.
5. The appellant-State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has concerted to vigorously contend before this Court qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, being not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs being sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence
