RUMI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) FIRST , the prosecution version may be noticed. On 12.12.2003, a police party headed by HC Hans Raj (PW-3), was present at a place called Parihar in connection with routine traffic checking. Around 4.30 PM when the documents of scooter of PW-1 Piar Singh were being checked, appellant was seen coming from dam side along a village path. On seeing the police, the appellant turned about and tried to escape. This aroused the suspicion of PW-3 Hans Raj, Head Constable. He alongwith some other police officials ran after the appellant and overpowered him at a distance of 50-60 yards and recovered Charas from him, which was contained in a plastic bag. The plastic bag containing Charas was brought to the site where checking of the vehicles and the documents was going on. PW-1 Piar Singh was told by PW-3 HC Hans Raj that a bag containing Charas had been recovered from the appellant. Charas was weighed. It was found to be 2.050 Kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. Further investigation of the case was handed over to PW-4 Jog Raj, ASI, who happened to reach the place sometime after 6 PM. Custody of the accused was handed over to said Jog Raj. Three parcels containing the bulk Charas and the samples made by PW-3 HC Hans Raj and sealed with seal "T", were also handed over to him. Jog Raj resealed all the three samples with his own seal which produced the impression "J". PW-4 Jog Raj later on deposited the case property with PW-5 Rajinder Singh, MHC, who sent one of the two samples to the Chemical Laboratory through PW-6 Shiv Kumar, Constable. Examiner of the laboratory reported that the sample contained resin to the extent of 26.11% and beam's alkaline test was also found positive and hence, the sample had contents of "Charas".

(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the appellant has made threefold submission. Her first submission is that the search was not conducted in the presence of PW-1 Piar Singh, but still he has been cited as a witness of search and seizure and his signatures were also obtained on the search and seizure memo. Ext.PW1/B. It is true that search was conducted at the site where the appellant was overpowered by PW-3 Hans Raj and PW-1 Piar Singh was not present when the search was conducted, but both PW-1 Piar Singh and PW-3 Hans Raj have made no secret of this fact. Both of them have come out with the truth and testified that the search was conducted at the site where the appellant was overpowered and Charas was recovered from him. We find no contradiction at all in their testimony on this point. Also, we see no infirmity or inherent defect in the testimony of PW-3 Hans Raj indicating that the same is not correct. No suggestion was put to the witness that the Charas was planted by him. Also no suggestion was put to PW-1 Piar Singh that PW-3 Hans Raj was carrying anything with him, muchless the polythene bag containing Charas, when he chased the appellant. Appellant also does not plead in his statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., that the Charas was planted by PW-3 Hans Raj. Therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version that the polythene bag containing Charas was recovered from the appellant.