LAWS(GAU)-2025-5-33

BANAMALI SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On May 01, 2025
Banamali Sarkar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Sec. 415 BNSS] against the judgment and sentence dtd. 30/9/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon in Special (Nar) Case No. 46(BGN)/2021 under Sec. 20(C) of the NDPS Act, thereby sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 12 (Twelve) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00(Rupees One Lakh) in default further imprisonment for 6(six) months.

(2.) The criminal law was set into motion by registering a GD Entry No. 685 dtd. 21/5/2021 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bongaigaon Police Station (PW5). As per the said entry which was recorded at 6:50 PM, it was stated that secret information was received regarding storage of contraband ganja . A raid was accordingly made at about 08:00 PM in which 25.563 KGs of ganja were seized. On 22/5/2021, the formal FIR was lodged by the said PW5 in which there was full narration of the facts and the GD entry was also mentioned. After investigation, the Charge Sheet was laid before the learned Trial Court. The charges were thereafter, framed and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 9 nos. of witnesses. There was also a Court Witness (CW) who was a Police Officer.

(3.) PW1 is an independent witness who was also a seizure witness. He had deposed that on 21/5/2021 at about 9:00 PM, he was at a shop near his house when the Police had arrived and asked him to show the house of the appellant. He had also named one Pradip Burman (PW2) who was also present with him and the house of the appellant was shown. In the crossexamination, however, PW1 had stated that he did not see from where the Police had seized the ganja and he had not seen the seized ganja in the Court on the date of his examination. He has also stated that the ganja was not weighed in his presence. He had admitted before the Police that he did not state that the appellant was involved in ganja business.