LAWS(HPH)-2010-7-27

STATE OF HP Vs. MANOHAR LAL ALIAS MANOHARU

Decided On July 06, 2010
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
MANOHAR LAL @ MANOHARU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <JGN>Deepak Gupta, J.</JGN> This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.1998 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H. P., in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1997, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act').

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that on 12.6.1997 at about 1.30 p.m. PW-8 Vedh Singh, ASI Police Station, Aut, along with police officials HC Mool Raj, LHC Bher Singh, Constable Hem Chand and Homeguard Amin Chand had gone on patrolling duty towards Charidhar. When they reached near the house of the accused person they found that the poppy plants had been cultivated in the field. Accused Manohar Lal was summoned and asked about the ownership of the field in which the poppy plants were cultivated. The accused admitted that the field belonged to him. Thereafter the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat namely, PW-1 Smt. Damyanti and PW-2 Sh. Tara Chand were associated as independent witnesses. According to PW-8 the Patwari was also summoned but he was on leave. Photographs of the field were taken. 3341 poppy plants were found cultivated. These were uprooted and 50 poppy plants were separately sealed as sample with seal impression `A'. Thereafter, Rukka Ext.PW-8/A was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW- 8/B was prepared. Spot map Ext.PW-8/C was also prepared at the spot. Thereafter one sample was sent to the C.T.L. Kandaghat for analysis and on examination it was found that the poppy plants were within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Act. On this basis challan was filed in the Court.

(3.) The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the accused had in fact planted/cultivated the poppy plants in the field. At the outset it may be pointed out that as pointed out above the demarcation of the field where the poppy plants were allegedly found was not conducted by any revenue officer on 12.6.1997 when the poppy plants were uprooted. It was only on 19.6.1997 that PW-6 Field Kanungo Kanshi Ram and PW-5 Patwari also named Kanshi Ram went to the spot and there PW-6 demarcated the field. It is apparent from the statement of PW-5 that the demarcation was given on the identification of the police and there were no poppy plants in the field at that time . PW-6 has specifically admitted that the field had been ploughed and there were no crop on the land. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the field which was demarcated is the same from which the poppy plants were actually uprooted. 5. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the field is the same and it belongs to the accused. Mere ownership of the field would not show that the accused had cultivated the poppy plants. No doubt a presumption can be raised that the owner should be cultivating his land but in a criminal case it is for the prosecution to show that it was the accused who cultivated the poppy plants in the field. The witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution in this behalf. Both the Pradhan PW-1 Smt. Damyanti and Up-Pradhan PW-2 Sh. Tara Chand have clearly stated that at the time they reached the spot 5-6 police officials were present and some poppy plants had been uprooted. Both have stated that the accused at that time was aged about 80 years. According to these witnesses he remained ill. They had never seen the accused person ploughing the field. It is in their evidence that the accused person had four sons. The sons could have ploughed and cultivated the field. It has also come on record that the accused person is totally disabled and is unable to cultivate the land. The prosecution has therefore, miserably failed to show that it was the accused who had cultivated the poppy plants. The prosecution did not examine any other local witness to show who was the owner of the field in which the poppy plants were cultivated and further more to prove that who had actually planted the poppy plants. 6. The learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.