LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-114

POSHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On September 18, 2014
Poshu Ram Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 4.10.2010 rendered by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2010 whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the commission of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The period of detention undergone by the accused was ordered to be set off as per provisions contained under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 21.11.2009, PW -9 HC Paras Ram, SI Krishan Chand, PW -2 Het Ram, PW -10 HHC Amar Singh, constable Karamjore and PW -3 SI -SHO Narain Singh were present at Upper Mohal at 6.30 P.M. for patrolling. The vehicle was driven by Dinesh Kumar. Accused came from Pahnullah towards the police party carrying a backpack. He started going backwards on seeking the police party. He was apprehended. HHC Amar Singh was sent to bring independent person. However, he could not get any independent person. He narrated this fact to the Investigating Officer. PW -1 Sita Ram was coming from Mohal. He, Het Ram and Karamjore were associated as witnesses. Accused was told that the police was suspecting possession of some narcotic. Accused was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a competent Gazetted Officer. Accused consented to be searched by the police. Memo Ex. PW -1/A was prepared. Personal search of the accused was undertaken. Backpack Ex. P -2 was taken off. It was opened. It carried polythene bag containing charas. It was wrapped in red, blue and green coloured polythene wrappers Ex. P -3. It was found to be charas. It weighed 5 kgs. Sealing process was completed. Seal impressions were taken separately on separate pieces of cloth. NCB -1 form Ex. PW -3/B was filled in triplicate at the spot. The seal was handed over to witness ASI Het Ram after the use. Rukka Ex. PW -9/A was prepared, which was handed over to HHC Amar Singh. He on the basis of rukka Ex. PW -9/A recorded FIR Ex. PW -7/A. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The case property, sample seal, NCB -1 form in triplicate and other documents were produced before the Station House Officer Narain Singh in the Police Station for resealing. S.H.O. Narain Singh resealed the parcel with six impressions of seal 'T'. Seal impression Ex. PW -3/A was taken separately on a piece of cloth. Column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB -1 form were filled and seal impression was obtained on the NCB -1 form. Case property was handed over to PW -4 MHC Kartar Singh alongwith NCB -1 form, sample seals 'P' and 'T' and other documents on 22.11.2009. MHC Kartar Singh made an entry at Sr. No. 180 in the Malkhana register vide Ex. PW -4/A. HC Kartar Singh handed over the parcels, sample seals 'P' and 'T', NCB -1 form in triplicate; copies of seizure memo, FIR and docket to PW -5 HHC Mast Ram on 22.11.2009 with the direction to carry these to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga vide RC No. 165 of 09. HHC Mast Ram deposited these articles at Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 23.11.2009. Special report Ex. PW -6/A was handed over to HHC Amar Singh on 23.11.2009 with the direction to carry it to the Superintendent of Police. HHC Amar Singh handed over the special report to Superintendent of Police, Kullu. After chemical analysis, result of analysis Ex. PW -3/C was obtained. Investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Ajay Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused.