STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 9.1.2004, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2002, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution story in brief is that on 1.4.2002 PW -9, Inspector Kulwant Singh alongwith PW -8 ASI Narup Singh, PW -4, Constable Rajesh Kumar and some other police officials were present at Baloo Bridge near Chamba. They saw one person standing near the bus stop who appeared to be a stranger and got perplexed on seeing the police. Thereafter, on suspicion, PW9 questioned him about his identity and about what he was doing there. He did not give a satisfactory reply. The said person was carrying a box, which purported to be a box of fruits, in his hand. PW -9 opened the box and noticed that inside the box there was some hard substance in a polythene bag kept between the grapes. On opening this polythene bag, charas was found. Two independent witnesses Dinesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar who were already present on the spot were associated and in their presence charas was weighed and found to weigh 1kg.500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. The said samples and the remaining bulk charas was sealed in these separate parcels and sealed with seal impression T. The seal was handed over to one of the independent witnesses Dheeraj kumar (PW1). Recovery memo, EX. PA, was prepared and codal formalities completed at the spot. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to ASI Narup Singh. According to PW -9, he filled the NCB form EX. PE two days later in the police station. One of the sample was sent to CTL Kandaghat and it was opined that sample was of charas. On this basis, the accused was challaned for having committed the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) AFTER trial, the accused was acquitted mainly on the ground that there was total non compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Hence this appeal by the State.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has not discussed the other material facts and therefore, we have gone through the entire evidence. PW -9, the Inspector has given the same version as narrated above and PW -8 ASI Narup Singh has also given a similar version. One other police witness, PW4 Constable Rajesh Kumar has also supported the prosecution case. However, the so called independent witnesses PW1 Dinesh Kumar and PW2 Pawan Kumar, had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case at all. They were both declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution but they have stuck to the version that in their presence nothing was recovered. They have stated that by the time they were called, the entire process was complete and only the signatures were obtained by the police on certain documents. According to PW -1, he is a driver. He has signed the recovery memos at the asking of the police officials. Similar is the statement of PW2 Pawan Kumar, who is a vegetable -seller having a shop near Baloo Bridge. When in a case like the present one the independent witnesses turns hostile, it does not automatically mean that the accused has to be acquitted. By now, the law is very well settled, that the official witnesses are also equally good witnesses and in case the statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence and are consistent with each other then reliance can be placed on the statements of the official witnesses also.