SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Tirath Ram S/o Shri Puran Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2018
Decided On : 28-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Naveen K. Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent: Kunal Thakur.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 313 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 - Drugs - Police Party from Police Station headed by ASI along with HHC and other left Police Station in Government vehicle driven by one and reached destination - Purpose was to lay a “NAKA” for general checking of traffic as well as persons - Immediately after having laid “NAKA” police party noticed a person approaching them on foot from side of place known as Jari - He was carrying a bag in his hand - On seeing police party, such person turned back and ran towards a trail - He was apprehended by police officials - On being questioned regarding contents of bag, he got perplexed and started shivering - Person could not satisfactorily explain his conduct and thus raised suspicion in mind of Police officials - Investigating Officer ASI then suspected appellant having possession of some incriminating material - Area was isolated, HHC was deputed to search for some independent witnesses - Whether appellant has been able to probabilise his defense – Held, As against aforesaid evidence, appellant has not led any evidence to prove his alleged presence more specifically at bus-stand - There is no corroboration to version of appellant in this respect - It is also not comprehensible that in case version put-forth by appellant was correct, why police would not have registered case there and at bus-stand - There are no reasons appearing from record to infer any ulterior motive of police in projecting place, mode and manner of recovery different than what had actually happened - Place i.e. bus-stand falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, and place where recovery has been effected in instant case also falls within the jurisdiction of same Police Station, there cannot be any reason for police to have deferred registration of case for next morning especially by subjecting themselves to extreme cold condition as usually prevail during last week of the month of January in the area in question – Court have also not been able to find any fault or infirmity in appreciation of evidence by learned trial Court - Findings and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court are borne out from material proved on record - In light of the aforesaid discussion, court do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 02.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS” Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2016 a Police Party from Police Station Kullu headed by ASI Dinesh Kumar along with HHC Tikam Ram and HHC Shyam Dass left the Police Station at about 3.30 a.m. in Government vehicle No. HP-34A-9986 driven by C. Dinesh Kumar and reached “Cheela Mour” on Bhunter-Manikarn Road at about 4.20 a.m. The purpose was to lay a “NAKA” for general checking of traffic as well as persons. Immediately after having laid “NAKA” the police party noticed a person approaching them on foot from the side of place known as Jari. He was carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing the police party, such person turned back and ran towards a trail. He was apprehended by the police officials. On being questioned regarding contents of the bag, he got perplexed and started shivering. The person could not satisfactorily explain his conduct and thus raised suspicion in the mind of Police officials. The Investigating Officer ASI Dinesh Kumar then suspected the appellant having possession of some incriminating material. The area was isolated, therefore, HHC Tikam Ram was deputed to search for some independent witnesses. He returned after about twenty minutes and disclosed that none could be found at that hour of the night. In the given circumstances, the Investigating Officer ASI Dinesh Kumar associated HHC Shyam Dass and HHC Tikam Ram as witnesses. Firstly, he allowed his personal search to be made by the appellant in presence of aforesaid witnesses and thereafter the bag of appellant was searched. On search, six packets of rectangular shape, containing black coloured substance were recovered from the bag, which were wrapped in polythene tape. On being smelled, the substance was found to be cannabis/charas. The contraband so recovered was weighed and found 3 Kg. 55 grams. The recovered contraband was then placed in the same polythene packet and was thereafter sealed in a cloth parcel. Ten seals of ‘H’ were placed on the parcel. Facsimile of the sample seal was obtained on a separate piece of cloth. NCB-1 form in triplicate was filled by ASI Dinesh Kumar. Necessary memos were prepared and copies thereof were supplied to the appellant. A “Rukka” was prepared and sent for registration of FIR to Police Station, Kullu through HHC Shyam Dass. FIR No. 10 of 2016 was registered. Photographs, evidencing proceedings conducted on spot, were taken. Appellant was arrested and information of his arrest was given to his wife. The case property was then produced by the Investigating Officer to SHO, who re-sealed the same with four seals with impression ‘T’. The facsimile of seal was preserved and the case property was deposited in Malkhana.

3. On 29.01.2016 the case property was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis through (PW-2) C. Sanjeev Kumar No. 156. The case property along with the report of SFSL, Junga was brought back to the Police Station by (PW-3) HHC Lal Singh No. 219 on 17.02.2016. The challan was presented. The appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu on 20.06.2016.

4. The prosecution examined total nine witnesses to prove its case. The statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence. Learned Special Judge-II, Kullu proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellant vide judgment impugned in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top