GURJANT SINGH ALIAS RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned ASJ Faridkot in Sessions Case No. RT-3 dated 5.6.97 imposed by his judgment dated 14.10.99 on the appellants for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. According to the case of the prosecution, on 25.1.97 at about 9 p.m. the police party headed by SI Mukhwinder Singh and others were on patrolling duty. When they were going from Dauder towards Badni Khurd one tractor trolley came from the opposite side. SI stopped the said tractor trolley. Two persons who were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor trolley ran away while the driver of the tractor trolley was apprehended. From the tractor trolley poppy husk was recovered. In the statement of the driver namely Jagmohan Singh alias Boota Singh he has disclosed the names of these appellants as the persons who sat at the mudguard and who ran away on seeing the police party. After completion of the investigation challan was presented against Jagmohan Singh and the appellants in these appeals for the offence under Section 15 of the Act. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and marked certain documents. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the trial Jagmohan Singh the driver of the tractor died. On a consideration of the evidence on record both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. Hence these two appeals.

(2.) THE only evidence on record against the appellants for the purpose of showing their involvement in the commission of offence is the statement of Jagmohan Singh which was recorded by the police in which he disclosed the names of the appellants as the persons who sat on the mudguard and who ran away on seeing the police. PW4 is the SI who was heading the patrolling party and who stopped the tractor trolley. In his evidence he categorically stated that the driver of the tractor was apprehended and he disclosed the names of the persons sitting on the mudguard of the tractor as Gurjant Singh and the name of the person sitting on the tractor trolley to be Nachhattar Singh. In the cross-examination he has categorically stated that it is correct that at the time of stoppage of the tractor trolley it was dark. He also stated that he did not know any of the accused earlier. He also stated that the names of Nachhattar Singh and Gurjant Singh were introduced by him at the instance of Jagmohan sigh on that day. It is also in his evidence that no identification parade has been conducted. Further, a reading of his evidence also shows that he had not seen both the appellants since it was dark. Simply on the statement of the driver of the tractor trolley the accused cannot be convicted. His evidence cannot be used against the accused to show that the accused have been transporting the contraband. There is no other evidence to implicate the accused-appellants for being in possession of the contraband.