STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUCHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :- On 15.6.1989 PW-4 Inspector Kashmira Singh was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Morinda. On that day, he alongwith PW-1 ASI Kartar Singh and other police officials was holding a naka on the turning towards village Ramgarh Manda when a Maruti car No. DNA-1737 coming from the side of Morinda, being driven by accused Sucha Singh, was stopped on suspicion. The accused was asked whether he wished to be searched before a Gazetted Officer but he expressed his confidence in the police officer and gave his willingness to be searched by him. The car was accordingly searched and three bags of poppy husk weighing 40 kgs. each were recovered. 250 gms. of poppy husk was taken from each of the bags as samples for analysis whereas the rest of the poppy husk was sealed and deposited in the Malkhana and a case registered against the accused. On the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the accused was sent up to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 ASI Kartar Singh, PW-2 HC Gurmit Singh; PW-3 Gurcharan Singh, the only independent witness, who was declared hostile as he declined to support the prosecution; and PW-4 Inspector Kashmira Singh, before whom the recovery had been effected. The prosecution case was then put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied that allegations and claimed innocence. He further stated that a false case had been foisted upon him at the instance of M.L.A. Bir Devinder Singh with whom he had enmity and Inspector Kashmira Singh was related to him. He also produced DW-1 Kulwinder Singh in support of his case. The trial Court examined the evidence and concluded that it was the positive prosecution case that the car in which the accused alongwith poppy husk had been apprehended bore registration No. DNA-1737 whereas in Ex.DA, the report submitted by PW-4 Inspector Kashmira Singh, the car number had been mentioned as DNA-1731 and though he had admitted that he had also taken the registration certificate into his possession and it was possible that a fake number had been put on the car by changing it from DNA-1731 to DNA-1737. The Court found this explanation to be wholly unacceptable as the police officer had seized not only the car but also the registration certificate in which the correct number of the car had been given. The court also observed that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which were mandatory, had not been complied with and for this reason also, the prosecution case was vitiated. The court further found that the link evidence was missing as PW-4 Inspector Kashmira Singh had stated that he had handed over the case property to PW-1 ASI Kartar Singh who, in turn, had immediately deposited the same with the M.H.C. whereas the affidavit Ex.PD of the M.H.C. revealed that the case property had been deposited with him on 15.6.1989 i.e. about 4 days after the recovery. The trial Court also observed that there were material discrepancies in the evidence of ASI Kartar Singh and Inspector Kashmira Singh and as such the explanation given by the accused and the evidence of DW-1 Kulwinder Singh that the case had been foisted upon him at the instance of MLA Bir Devinder Singh, appeared to be correct. The trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record with their assistance. We find that the trial Court has given various reasons on a minute appreciation of the evidence to conclude that the accused was innocent and the case against him had been registered on extraneous considerations. We are of the opinion that once a discrepancy had been found with regard to the vehicle from which the incriminating material had been recovered and the accused arrested, the very basis of the prosecution story could be said to have disappeared. We also find that there was no proper evidence to show that the case property had been kept in proper custody before it had been handed over to MHC Gurmit Singh as Inspector Kashmira Singh stated that he had handed over the case property to ASI Kartar Singh, who had deposited the same with MHC Gurmit Singh whereas the affidavit Ex.PD of MHC Gurmit Singh reveals that the case property had been deposited with him by Inspector Kashmira Singh himself.

(3.) WE , therefore, reverse the finding of the trial Court on this limited aspect but endorse the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. Resultantly, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.