SONA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sonaram has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal in order to assail the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Case, Jodhpur in Sessions Case no.41/2013 convicting and sentencing the appellant as below:

(2.) Succinctly stated, facts essential and relevant for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below:

(3.) On 07.10.2012, Shri Parbat Singh (PW-10), SHO, Police Station Jhanwar claims to have received a source information to the effect that the illicit poppy straw and opium were stored in the residential premises of Sonaram at the village Hemnagar falling in jurisdiction of the Police Station Jhanwar. The accused was allegedly on the look out for selling off the contraband opium and in case, the procedure of search by a Magistrate was followed, the contraband could be disposed of. The information was considered to be reliable and was taken down in writing. A copy thereof was forwarded to the superior officer with a woman constable named Smt. Seeta. Constable Oparam was provided requisitions to seek independent witnesses from the village Jhanwar to associate in the search proceedings. He summoned two independent Panch witnesses named Durg Singh and Mangilal whose consent was taken for standing as witnesses in the proposed search. At 10:40 a.m., the SHO along with his team members proceeded to the house of the accused from the police station in a private vehicle. The Police party reached the residential premises of Sonaram at 11:40 a.m. The SHO and the team members called out the name of the accused on which, it was seen that the house was lying open and nobody was present therein. A litter later, a person came out in the open chowk and upon enquiry, identified himself to be Sonaram son of Jodharam of village Joliyali Hemnagar. He was apprised of the source information and his consent was taken under Section 50 of the NDPS Act for his personal search as well as for searching the house. Sonaram agreed that the search may be taken by the SHO himself. Thereafter, personal search of Sonaram was taken wherein, no incriminating material was recovered. Thereafter the search of the house was commenced. Upon checking a room located on the north east corner of the house, some dry vegetation husk was seen lying therein. It was removed and underneath it, a jute bag was seen in which, four poly-bags containing some semi-solid substance were concealed. The husk was suspected to be poppy straw. The four poly-bags were opened and on smelling, they gave opium like odour. Sonaram could provide any licence for possessing the poppy straw and opium milk. Proceedings of weighment and sampling were undertaken. The poppy straw weighed 18.350 Kgs. Two samples of 500 gm. each were taken out from the contraband poppy straw and were sealed and chits were appended thereupon. The four poly bags containing suspected opium milk weighed at 3.455 Kgs., 3.120 kgs., 1.115 kgs. and 350 Gms. respectively. From every poly bag, two samples of 30 gm. each were taken out and were sealed and chits appended thereupon. The remnant contraband was resealed in the same packing material. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Sonaram for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and charges were framed against him by the trial court for these very offences. He denied the same and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the prosecution allegations and claimed himself to be innocent alleging that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He specifically stated that he did reside in village Hemnagar Joliyali. He specifically denied having any connection with or dominion over the premise from where, the alleged recovery was effected. He claimed to have shifted to Bhuratiya Colony, Soorsagar about 5 years ago. He alleged that he was forcibly picked up from his house at Bhurtiya Colony and was taken to the Police Station Jhanwar and a false recovery of narcotics foisted upon him. Two witnesses were examined in defence. Before the trial court, three significant arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant which form the foundation of the challenge laid to his conviction before this Court as well: