The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, along with the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and the chain of custody.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2014, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2012, State vs. Mukesh, by the court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. It has further been directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Facts briefly stated are as follows:

PW-4 Head Constable, Hari Mohan was travelling in Lahori Express Train on 15.11.2011. He spotted a person with four bags. That person became uncomfortable when he noticed the presence of police personnel. He was the appellant. He was asked as to what he was carrying in these bags. He revealed that he was carrying Ganja. PW-4 Head Constable, Hari Mohan informed it to the Police Station Railway Station Haridwar. Thereafter, PW-1 Sub Inspector, Hari Singh Negi along with PW-2 Constable, Satendra Lal and PW-3 Police Constable, Gyan Chandra reached in the general coach, where the appellant had already been apprehended by PW-4 Head Constable, Hari Mohan. The appellant was deboarded from the train. The bags containing Ganja were weighed. It had 10 kg, 9 kg, 9.5 Kg and 11 kg Ganja respectively. 250 gm sample from each of the bags were taken. PW-1 Sub Inspector, Hari Singh Negi prepared the recovery memo Ex.A3. Based on which, chick FIR Ex.A7 was recorded at Police Station GRP, Haridwar on 15.11.2011 at 23:50 hours and a case was lodged. The samples were sent for forensic examination, which confirmed it Ganja. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ex.A9 and after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 8/20 of the Act.

3. On 25.02.2012, the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 8/20 of the Act, to which, he denied and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 Sub Inspector, Hari Singh Negi, PW-2 Constable, Satyendra Lal, PW-3 Constable Police, Gyan Chandra, PW-4 Head Constable, Hari Mohan, PW-5 Head Constable, Sanjay Pundir, PW-6 Sub Inspector, Neelam Rawat, PW-7 Sub Inspector, Madan Singh Rautela, PW-8 Sub Inspector, Ganesh Singh and PW-9 Constable, Jagat Singh.

5. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). The appellant denied having possession of the bags containing Ganja. According to him, he was beaten in the police station and compelled to sign on the blank papers. The documents are false. According to the appellant, he was going to Punjab in search of work, but he has been falsely implicated.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the appellant has preferred an instant appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge, but the court below has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is argued that, in fact, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the bags were in the possession of the appellant.

9. Reference has been made to the statement of PW-4 Head Constable, Hari Mohan. In his cross examination, paragraph 2 in first sentence, he has stated that the bags were separately kept; they were below the seat and were unclaimed. It is argued that admittedly, there was a lot of crowd in the general coach. It further makes the prosecution case doubtful.

10. On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that the commercial quantity of Ganj