PRASHANT KUMAR SIYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on IA No. 1, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable in law. It is submitted that both the independent witnesses of seizure have not supported any of the proceedings drawn by S.L. Chandrakar, PW-7, Inspector, the independent witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile stating that no seizure was made in their presence. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of S.L. Chandrakar, PW-7 is not reliable with regard to seizure because the other police witness Mahendra Prasad Pandey, PW-9 has given contradictory statement with regard to place and the manner, in which, the seizure was made. While S.L. Chandrakar, PW-7 has stated that before his arrival, the train had already left the platform, the FIR, which has been lodged at the instance of this witness, states that the appellant was taken out from the train and seizure was made near tea stall. Mahendra Prasad Pandey, PW-9 has however, stated that the appellant was caught with contraband in bogie No. B-1 of the train and contraband was found kept under berth No. 30. Thus, the evidence of Investigating Officer is not at all reliable.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that even though, the independent witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Investigating Officer, S.L. Chandrakar, PW-7 has clearly stated regarding seizure of contraband from the possession of the appellant and the contradiction with regard to place of seizure as staed by Mahendra Prasad Pandey, PW 9, Head Constable, is minor discrepancy.