VIJENDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants- Vijender Singh (A-1) and Rozy Vijender @ Elizabeth Samuel (A-2) impugn judgment dated 15.10.2011 in Sessions Case No. 28A/2006 arising out of Complaint ID No.02403R0183302006 (Ex.PW-2/A) by which they were held guilty for committing offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act and acquitted of the charges under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Act. Vide order dated 17.10.2011, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac, each.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 23.11.2005 at around 07.30 P.M., at Bus stop, outside New Delhi Railway Station, they were found in possession of 5.022 kg. of Heroin meant to be delivered to an individual. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants pleaded false implication and came up with the plea that they were lifted from their rented house on 22.11.2005 at about 02.00 P.M. by DRI officials. DW-1 (Rajbir Singh) stepped in their defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held both the appellants guilty for the offence mentioned above. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of official witnesses without seeking independent corroboration. Mandatory provisions of Section 50 were not complied with. No reasonable explanation was offered for withholding independent panch witnesses. No such independent witnesses were associated at the time of alleged recovery. It was the duty of the complainant to ascertain the address of panch witnesses to examine them in the Court. Counsel for the appellants further pointed out that material discrepancies and improvements emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without any valid reasons. The prosecution was unable to prove that the accused travelled in Malwa Express. No attempt was made to ascertain the time when Malwa Express was to arrive at its destination. Statement under Section 67 was recorded under duress. Their signatures were taken on blank papers. The confessional statements were retracted by the appellants at the earliest opportunity. The proceedings were conducted at DRI office. Log book was not maintained and proved. The prosecution was unable to establish A-2's identity beyond reasonable doubt.