LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-159

TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On September 11, 2015
TARSEM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 31.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions trial No. 05/3 of 2014, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried alongwith another accused Tara Chand, for offence under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of '1.00 Lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years, for the commission of offence under Section 15(c) read with Section 29 of the Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-10 Inspector Gurdeep Singh, PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar, PW-2 C. Sunil Kumar and C. Balwinder Singh were present at Dabat Majari on patrolling duty on 14.11.2013 at about 3.00 am in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69A-0974 and at about 5.10 am, a silver coloured Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. HR- 51J-1694 came from Dabat side. It was signalled to stop. Two persons were sitting in the car. They disclosed their identity. On being asked, the accused could not produce documents of the Car. Suspicion arose. Vehicle was checked. Dickey of the Car was opened by accused Tara Chand. In the dickey of the car, three plastic bags (Ext. P1 to Ext. P-3) were found. Two plastic bags were black in colour and third was white in colour. Small plastic bag was found containing in it 10 polythene packets while other two were containing 20 polythene packets (Ext. P4 to Ext. P53).

(3.) Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. According to them, they were falsely implicated. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal.