Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S Nos. 101, 332 of 2002
Decided On : 29-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sumayia Malik
For the Respondent: Sandeep Kumar

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' conscious possession of contraband due to investigative flaws, emphasizing the need for independent corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15 and 61 - Conviction and sentence under NDPS Act - Appellants convicted and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine for possession of poppy husk - Convictions were questioned based on absence of direct evidence linking appellants to the contraband and flaws in investigation, including absence of key independent witnesses. (Paras 6, 10, 14)

(B) Evidence - Admissibility and relevancy - Failure to produce case property and absence of corroborating independent witness questioned the prosecution’s case against the appellants, compromising the integrity of the investigation. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were accused of possessing 50 bags of poppy husk while being apprehended months after the alleged incident; no adequate identification or direct evidence was presented against them.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's findings could not stand.

Issues: The main issues included the failure of the prosecution to produce the contraband and the reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere flight from the scene does not establish guilt, and that failure to conduct a test identification parade, along with the lack of independent witness testimony, undermined the prosecution's case. The integrity of the investigation was in question due to the involvement of the complainant as the investigating officer.

Result: Appeals allowed; judgments set aside, appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. background on arrest and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on false implication and trial failures (Para 7 , 8)
3. analysis of evidence and procedural flaws (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. outcome of appeals and order (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J

1. This common judgement shall dispose of both the abovementioned appeals as they arise from identical factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRA-S-332-SB-2002.

2. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2001 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Fatehgarh Sahib in FIR No.113 dated 23.11.1986 under Sections 15 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 15 of NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The facts of the prosecution case, tersely put, are that on 23.11.1986, a police party headed by PW5-SHO SI Sher Singh (Investigating Officer) was on patrolling duty, when they received secret information that a truck bearing registration No.PJP-5277 has been parked by the road. The appellants along with one other person were sitting in the truck and it was loaded with poppy husk. Information being reliable, the police party proceeded to the spot. On their way, one independent witness, namely, Harbans Singh Lambardar joined the police personnel at Village Mughal Majra. When the police jeep approached the truck, three persons, on noticing the police jeep, fled away from the spot and managed to escape under the cover of darkness. The truck was unloaded and 50 bags containing poppy husk were recovered. On weightment, 45 kg of poppy husk was found in each bag. A sample weighing 100 grams was extracted from each of the gunny bags containing poppy husk and prepared into parcels. The sample parcels and the remaining contraband were separately sealed with the seal of the Investigation Officer, S.I. Sher Singh, bearing inscription ‘SS’. The recovered contraband was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF. The bags containing poppy husk were numbered 1 to 50 and the corresponding sample parcels were also numbered as 1 to 50.

4. Appellant Roshan Lal was arrested on 26.03.1987. The remaining accused were declared proclaimed offenders. Subsequently, on account of Roshan Lal jumping bail, he was also declared as proclaimed offender on 03.05.1991. Later on, Roshan Lal was again apprehended and the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was presented on 29.10.1994. On finding a prima facie case against the appellant, charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was framed against him vide order dated 11.03.1995, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial proceedings, appellant Kuldeep Singh was also arrested and charged vide order dated 22.10.1997 for having committed an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the appellants and their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded false implication. However, the appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence.

6. After minutely scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution and going through the record of the case, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as discussed herein above.

CONTENTIONS

7. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment on the ground that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the incident is of 23.11.1986, yet the appellants were neither apprehended from the spot nor connected with the truck in question.