SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge in RBT No. 36 -AR/3 of 2010/11, dated 31.3.2012, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for allegedly keeping in his possession 1.500 Kilograms of Charas and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one years. He was also given the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 6.6.2010, PW7 HC Noop Ram was heading a police party in the area of Sainj/Khekhar in connection with a special campaign for better traffic management. Around 6 p.m., when they were reached near Cheel Mor, they found the appellant hereinafter to be referred as "the accused" standing near the parapet near a short -cut leading to village Luhri joining the National Highway No. 22. On seeing the police, he had tried to escape through the shortcut. Getting suspicious, police chased and apprehended him at some distance.

(2.) TO prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was that he was alighted from the bus by the police at Sainj Chowk and was taken to Police Post, where all the formalities were completed and they implicated him in a false case. He did not lead any evidence in defence. He did not state any reasons for his false implication or nurturing any enmity by the police. At the end of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that in the above factual situation the inclusion of independent witnesses is not imperative and further that the place where the accused was apprehended was secluded and no independent witness was otherwise available. The accused did not spell out any reason for his false implication. The recovery from the accused stands proved. The whole stuff was sent to the Laboratory for its examination. The report of analysis is in conformity with law and the link evidence is complete.