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

2019 Supreme(UK) 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK SINGH, J.
Sandeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2006
Decided On : 03-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ramji Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondents:Pushpa Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General

The prosecution must produce crucial link evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 8 read with 20(b) ii (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8, Section 20(b) ii (B)

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with 20(b) ii (B) of the NDPS Act for carrying charas. The prosecution failed to produce important link evidence such as sample seal and entries of Maalkhana register, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to produce crucial link evidence, and the conviction based on suspicion could not be upheld beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Failure to produce important link evidence, sufficiency of evidence to prove the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of crucial link evidence such as sample seal and entries of Maalkhana register led to the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Singh, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.02.2006 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2003 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with 20(b) ii (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of sixth month.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Sub Inspector Seth Pal Singh (PW5) lodged a check FIR No. 1 of 2003 on 14.02.2003 at 4.00 p.m. with police station Purola, District Uttar Kashi stating therein that on 14.02.2003 at about 09.45. a.m., one police informer passed a secret information that some persons, carrying charas, would pass from Yamuna bridge near Kyara Cheena area between 02.00 p.m. and 02.30 p.m.; receiving this information, PW 5 Seth Pal Singh requested the Tehsildar, Badkot Sri S.S. Panwar to accompany them for search of accused; Tehsildar Badkot arrived at the police station with his driver; thereafter, SI Seth Pal Singh (PW5), Tehsildar Sri S.S. Panwar, Constable Praveen Kumar, Constable Virendra Singh Chauhan, Constable Pradeep Kumar, Constable Jagmal Singh, Constable Sandeep Kumar, Constable Bhopal Singh and police informer went to the spot; SI Seth Pal Singh took measuring scale and measurements from the shop of Narendra Singh @ Bobby situated in Damta market; police party tried to have independent witnesses, however, none could agree to become independent witness; thereafter, members of the police party, searched each other and having satisfied that none of them was carrying any illegal thing proceeded towards Kyara Cheena; they stood behind one shop; after some time, they saw five persons were coming across the Yamuna bridge; police informer pointed out towards them and told the police party that these were the persons, who were carrying charas with them; having pointed out the police, informer left the place; police party encircled them; on search, pieces of black substance were recovered from each of the five accused and they had disclosed their names as Bhola, Raj Singh, Sandeep, Nagendra, Dinesh; PW5 Seth Pal Singh smelled the black substance recovered from the polythene bags carried by the five accused and found that the black substance was charas; he asked for license but they failed to produce it; 50-50 gms. of charas was taken out from each polythene bag, for the sample purpose and were kept in two different seal covers and rest of the contraband, so recovered from the appellants, were kept in different seal covers; seizure memo and arrest memo were prepared on the spot; all the accused were brought to the police station and thereafter, check FIR was registered in the police station.

3. PW 4 Layak Singh Yadav conducted the investigation in the matter, who submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant on 04.05.2003.

4. Learned trial court framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20(b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. Appellant denied charges and claimed trial.

5. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Constable Praveen Kumar, PW2 Tehsildar S.S. Panwar, PW3 Constable Atar Singh, PW4 SI Layak Singh Yadav Investigation Officer and PW5 SI Seth Pal Singh were examined. Statements of appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide judgment and order under appeal convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved appellant has preferred present appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record.

8. As per the statement of PW5 Sub Inspector Seth Pal Singh, he had searched and arrested the appellan









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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