NIRBHAYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned. I have carefully scrutinized, scanned and evaluated the evidence and the record of the trial Court.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 5 Anil Joshi, the seizure officer, stated that two samples of 30 grams each were taken from the contraband opium seized from the appellant from a polythene bag and put in a metallic tin container and covered by cloth, whereas in the seizure memo EX.P/3, it has not been been mentioned that the samples were sealed in a polythene bag. It is further contended that even in the previous statement EX.D/5, it has not been stated that the samples were taken in a polythene bag. The word polythene has not been mentioned in the seizure memo EX.P./3 and the statement EX.D/5; however, PW 5 Anil Joshi, the seizure officer, in his statement recorded by the trial Court, stated that he took two samples of 30 grams each from a plastic bag and put it in a metallic tin and thereafter covered it by a cloth. Learned counsel further submits that PW 3 Lachchhi Ram and PW 4 Pratap Singh also did not state in their statements that the samples were taken from a plastic bag and put in a metallic tin. It was further contended that two samples of 30 grams each of the contraband opium were taken from the appellant, whereas the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur.

(3.) EX.P/23. shows that when it was chemically examined by the FSL, the substance weighed 15.100 grams along with the polythene bag and, therefore, there is variance in the weight of the samples taken from the contraband opium, which according to the learned counsel, creates a doubt in the prosecution case.