HARI OM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that HC Krishan Chand PW-1, HHC Padam Singh, HHC Ramesh Chand PW-2, C.Manoj Kumar, C.Hitender Kumar and HC Prem Pal PW-8 were present at a naka at Rs.5 Miles' on 13.3.2008. At around 4.45 P.M., they spotted the accused coming from Pandoh with a backpack Ex.P-2 on his left shoulder. On seeing the police he became frightened and perplexed and tried to run away, but was apprehended by the police party. The prosecution case is that the place where he was apprehended was a lonely and deserted. On interrogation, he revealed his name as Rahul son of Jai Bhagwan. The circumstances were such that no independent witness was available in which eventuality HC Krishan Chand PW-1 and Constable Manoj Kumar were associated as witnesses. The police party gave their personal search to the accused and the accused was informed about his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but the accused adopted the search by the police.

(3.) BEFORE the learned trial Court it was pointed out that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses' inter alia PW-1 HC Krishan Chand has stated that the party had gone to the spot in a bus, whereas PW-2 HC Ramesh Chand has stated that they have proceeded on foot. PW-1 HC Krishan Chand stated that the accused was caught on the hill side at a distance of about 15-20 meters towards Pandoh, whereas PW-2 HC Ramesh Chand stated that he was apprehended near a river. Again the point urged was that PW-1 HC Krishan Chand stated that it took about 10 minutes to find out the name of the accused, whereas PW-2 HHC Ramesh Chand stated that the Investigating Officer had waited for independent witnesses for about 30 minutes, but nobody was found. Lastly, PW-1 HC Krishan Chand has stated that the Investigating Officer had not stopped any vehicle, whereas PW-2 HHC Ramesh Chand stated that the Investigating Officer had stopped 2/4 vehicles and asking the occupants to join as independent witnesses. The learned trial Court, on the settled law that minor contradictions do not in any manner efface the veracity of the prosecution evidence, found as a fact that this contradiction was insufficient, more especially, when the testimony of the police officials is consistent with the material particulars of the case. The Court accepted the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PW-9/C and proceeded to convict the appellant holding that there was no evidence on record to show that the seals etc. have been tampered with, which point seems to have been urged before the learned trial Court.