Appeal against acquittal in NDPS case dismissed as trial court view not perverse; independent witnesses resiling from driver identification and lack of possession link creates reasonable doubt justifying acquittal.

Judgment :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present appeal arises out of judgment, as passed by the learned Special Judge-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 18- D/VII/2013, dated 23.8.2014, whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 15 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) in case FIR No. 1/13, dated 16.1.2013, registered at Police Station State CID Bharari, Shimla.

2 The case of the prosecution is that on 16.1.2013, Inspector Ramesh Kumar, SI Subhash Chand, HC Vinay Kumar and Constable Ravinder Singh, CID Crime Branch, Dharamshala were going in a private vehicle bearing registration No. HP40B-0102 and at about 4:45 P.M. in the evening, they were present at Sukhar Bharana. At the relevant time, Vice-President Harbans Singh and Ward Member Kewal Singh were interacting with them and in the meantime one private vehicle came from Rehan side and it was going towards Gangath (Indora) and in the said vehicle, there was only driver. When they tried to stop the vehicle on the suspicion that the said vehicle must be carrying illicit wood or liquor etc. the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot and the police officials along with independent witnesses chased the vehicle in question, which was found about 2 ½ kms away from the spot and the driver of the vehicle after leaving the vehicle ran away towards jungle Kher. It was stated that while the said driver was running, the witnesses Harbans Singh and Kewal Singh recognized/identified the driver of the vehicle to be Rajesh Kumar alias Gullabu, son of Sh. Karam Chand, resident of Village Chattroli. The police party tried their level best to intercept the driver, however on account of dense forest, he managed to flee away from the spot. Inspector Ramesh Kumar along with other police officials gave their personal search to the aforesaid witnesses and thereafter the Bolero vehicle bearing temporary registration No. HP-33T-9277 was inspected and copy of insurance, invoice bills, sale letter in the name of one Rajeev Thakur, son of Sh. Narinder Singh, having been kept in a black coloured bag, along with four booklets, one mobile phone and pen drive were recovered from the dash board of the vehicle. From the dickey of the said vehicle at the back side, one carton box was recovered and on opening the same, 19 packets of parvon Spas capsules, each packet containing 200 capsules, total 3800 capsules; 80 pouches of pyremol spasm each containing 100 capsules total 8000 capsules, two black polythene bags of poppy husk weighing one kilogram and 25 injections of Brufen were found. Thereafter NCB forms, in triplicate, were prepared and the case property was taken into possession and sealed in a gunny bag, in which ‘Sarswati Sugar Canb’ Sugar was written, with seven seals of seal impression “H”. The aforesaid vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memo in the presence of witnesses. After obtaining specimen seal impression on a separate piece of cloth, seal after use was handed over to witness Harbans Singh.

3 The Investigating Officer, after preparing the rukka, sent the same through FAX to State CID Bharari Shimla, on the basis of which formal FIR came to be registered against the accused. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Special report was submitted to the Dy.S.P. State CID Dharamshala and the accused was accordingly arrested.

4 The case property was also sent to SFSL Junga for chemical analysis and on receipt of the SFSL report and after completing all codal formalities, final report was filed in the court.

5 On finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 15 and 22 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the r