STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KAMLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that on 4.2.1986, Assistant Sub Inspector Satbir Singh of Police Station City, Panipat, alongwith Head Constables Virsa Singh, Gulab Singh and Shiv Kumar, and Constable Balraj, was present near ganda gala close to the PWD Rest House on the G.T. Road, Panipat, where he saw the respondent coming from the Railway Crossing along the ganda nala, carrying a bag in his hand. On taking note of the presence of the police party, he tried to slip away towards the Rest House, which aroused suspicion. He was, therefore, stopped. After offering himself for search by the respondent, leading to recovery of some cash and a wrist watch. However, on examination of the contents of the bag, the Assistant Sub Inspector found the respondent in possession of charas wrapped in a wax paper placed below the wearing clothes, which constituted an offence. Accordingly, the Assistant Sub Inspector seized the contraband material, from which he separated 10 grams as sample and made it into a parcel. He also converted the remainder into a separate parcel and sealed both the parcels in the presence of the witnesses, with his seal bearing the inscription of "S.S.". He took the case property into possession, vide recovery memo Exhibit PA, and sent ruqa Exhibit PB to the police station for registration of formal FIR. He also prepared rough site plan Exhibit PC of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the respondent and deposited the case property intact with the H.M.C. on the same day. The prosecution to prove its case, has relied upon the testimony of two witnesses, namely, Head Constable Virsa Singh PW-1 and Sub Inspector Satbir Singh PW-2 and also brought on record the recovery memo Exhibit PA, ruqa Exhibit PB, formal FIR Exhibit PB/1, rough-site plan Exhibit PC, report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. PD) and link evidence in the form of affidavits Exhibits PE and PF, to prove the charge against the respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the prosecution witnesses examined in this case have consistently supported the prosecution case and the charge framed against the respondent stands established and, therefore, the respondent is liable to be convicted. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and, therefore, the credibility of the two prosecution witnesses stands eroded. The learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the Investigating Officer has deliberately withheld the independent witnesses although many private persons were available and since the prosecution story is not supported by independent evidence, therefore, the respondent is not liable to be convicted. He further contended that the affidavits forming part of the file do into conform to the requirements of section 297, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, for that reason also, the respondent cannot be convicted on the material on the record.