RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Rameshwar son of Parma Nand stood trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Misc. Sessions Case No. 95/2 of 1986 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and after trial he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The case of the prosecutions is as follows :-

(2.) ON 10.1.1986 Inspector Sada Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspectors Zile Singh, Bachan Singh along with the Police Party were returning from Model Town, Panipat towards Police Station City, Panipat in the Jeep, after patrolling, in the early hours of the day. At about 5.20 a.m. appellant/accused Rameshwar, who was coming from the side of the Railway Colony, tried to turn back on seeing the police party. On suspicion he was apprehended and was found to carry 7 Kg of opium apart from a shirt and Pyjama in a jhola, which the appellant/accused was carrying. The appellant had no licence to possess opium. The sample of opium collected and remainder were separately sealed in parcels and were taken into possession under recovery memo Ex.PA. On the ruqa Ex.PB sent to the Police Station a formal F.I.R. Ex. PB/1 was registered. The sample was sent for Chemical Analysis and the report thereof is Ex.PD. The prosecution examined Assistant Sub-Inspector Zile Singh and Inspector Sada Ram apart from marking the affidavit of MHC Bhalla Ram (Ex.PE) and Constable Sunder Lal (Ex.PG/1). When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant/accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. According to him he was coming from Delhi and was sitting in the Bus, which stopped at Bus Stand, Panipat, and that a constable who came into the Bus had taken him to the Police Station. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same the accused has now come forward with this appeal.

(3.) FURTHER , the case of the prosecution is that the police party, including PW1 and PW2 were coming back to the police station, Panipat and at about 5.20 a.m. the accused was apprehended and the contraband seized from him. But PW1 stated in his evidence that the accused was apprehended at 5.15 a.m. Of course, the difference is only five minutes and this would not have made much difference in normal circumstances. But, this is a case in which no independent witness was joined by the prosecution. Secondly inspite of the fact that the accused is stated to have been arrested at 5.15 a.m. and the ruqa (intimation) was sent to the police station at 6.30 a.m., PW1 Zile Singh stated in his evidence that they reached the police station at 9.00 or 9.15 a.m., while PW2 Sada Ram stated in his evidence that they remained at the spot of arrest up to 8.45 - 9.00 a.m. According to the evidence of PW1-Zile Singh, Police Station City, Panipat is one kilometre from the alleged place of recovery. These matters assume importance because of the fact that there was no necessity for the police to remain at the spot where the appellant is alleged to have been arrested, till 9.00 or 9.15 a.m. and reached the police station at about that time, when it is admitted that the distance between the alleged place of arrest and the police station is only one km. According to the defence, the accused-appellant had come by bus and when the bus stopped at the Bus Stop, a police constable came and took him away from the bus. According to him, the jhola belonged to one Balwinder Singh who had also travelled in the bus and gone away at that time. The appellant contends that the bag did not belong to him. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the defence is probablised by the fact that the police reached the police station only at 9.00/9.15 a.m. If the accused had been arrested at 5.15 a.m. and the ruqa sent to the police station at 6.30 a.m., there was no necessity for them to remain at the alleged spot of arrest till 9.00/9.15 a.m. This only goes to probablise the case of the defence that the accused was not arrested at the alleged place of arrest but was taken away from the bus which was standing at the bus stop, at 8.30 a.m. So, the non- joining of any independent witness, the difference in the alleged time of arrest, and the admitted time of reaching the police station only after four hours from the time of the alleged arrest, all go to cast a shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which should go to the accused- appellant.