AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS , Ajay Kumar and Som Dutt, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, whereby they alongwith three other persons, named Raghubir Singh, Raj Kumar and Prakash Chand, have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. After the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction, three co-convicts of the appellants absconded. The present appellants were heard on the question of quantum of sentence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) FACTS , as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. On the night intervening 1st and 2nd January, 2002 when ASI Duni Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Chand (PW-11), accompanied by HC Kushal Kumar (PW-1) and HC Surjeet Singh (PW-2), three Constables and three Home Guard volunteers, was present near Cant. Chowk, Mcleodganj, in connection with Naka duty, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-01-3189 appeared from Dharamshala side. It was headed for Mcleodganj. On a signal being raised by the aforesaid police officials, the vehicle stopped. Five persons were found present in the van. Raghubir Singh, one of the absconded convicts, was in driver's seat. Ajay Kumar was sitting on the front seat on the left side of driver seat. On checking of the vehicle, two polythene bags containing Charas were found lying near the gear box. On being weighed the stuff was found to be 1.735 grams. Three samples, each weighing 25 grams, were taken out from each of the two polythene bags. The samples and the bulk Charas were sealed in separate parcels. Two samples, one each from the recovered two polythene bags, were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that the samples contained contents of Charas.

(3.) APPELLANTS ' main grievance is that the evidence has not been appreciated by the trial Court in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there were five persons travelling by the vehicle and there is no evidence which of the five occupants had kept the Charas in the vehicle, even if it be believed that Charas was recovered from the vehicle, in question. It was submitted that as a matter of fact Charas was recovered from some other vehicle, but the occupants of that vehicle were let off and the Charas was planted in the van, in question.