Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 Mohan Lal Vs. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 535-SB of 2006 Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia. Present: Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the appellnats. Ms. Shalini Atri, AAG, Haryana K.S. Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Appellants Niranjan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Mohan Lal son of Gopi Ram have filed the aforesaid two separate appeals, impugning the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby both of them stand convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act ( hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac each, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for two years. Both the appellants were prosecuted in case FIR No. 91 dated 15-5-2002 by the police of police station City Dabwali. The FIR came into existence on the basis of a ruqqa sent by ASI Sarwan Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -2- Kumar. In the ruqqa, he stated that he along with his companion police officials was holding naka-bandi on the road at T-point of village Shergarh for the purpsoe of detection of crimes when Mangat Ram son of Hukam Chand, resident of Mandi Dabwali presented himself. They were having conversation when one White Colour Maruti car bearing registration No. HRN-3443 was sighted. The car including the driver had two passengers. ASI signalled them to stop with the torch-light, but the driver speeded up the car towards Sangaria road, due to which a suspicion arose and the car was chased. The car turned turtle near village Shergarh at a distance of 17 Kms. When the ASI reached the spot, he heard one person saying, “Niranjan, you run away. I have got injury. I would not be able to run”. With the help of police officials, one person was arrested by the ASI, who disclosed his name as Mohan Lal. It is stated that Mohan Lal disclosed the name of his companion, who had escaped from the spot as Niranjan Singh. Mohan Lal accused was got medico legally examined on 15-5-2002 at 10-50 AM and in the history given to the doctor, it has been recorded that he had suffered multiple abrasions and lacerations due to alleged over turning of the car. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The accused were charged under Section 15 of the Act on the allegation that they were having in their possession 120 Kgs of poppy husk. They pleaded not-guilty and Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -3- claimed trial. In order to substantiate its charge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all: PW1 HC Kheta Ram and PW 2 Constable Mahabir tendered their affidavits, Exhibits PA & PB respectively in order to establish link evidence. PW 3 Mangat Ram is the independent witness, who opted not to support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was put to him as he resiled from his previous statement. PW 4 Inspector Ram Rattan, who deposed that ASI Sarwan Kumar had produced accused Mohan Lal and the case property before him. PW 5 Chander Singh DSP in whose presence the recovery was effected and three bags were found from the rear seat of the car. In cross-examination, he stated that Constable Rajinder Singh had brought a photographer at 2-45 PM. He admitted that he stayed at the spot for six hours. PW 6 Sarwan Kumar ASI is the Investigating Officer. PW 7 Gori Shanker photographer, who has proved the photographs exhibits P4 to P6, which show at the spot a white Maruti car had overturned, with tyres upward. Both the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mohan Lal stated that he was apprehended from his Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -4- house at the instance of one Radhey Ram, Chairman of Zila Prishad and was given merciless beatings and thereafter falsely implicated in this case, regarding which a complaint was made by his brother. Niranjan Singh appellant also stated that he was falsely implicated due to party faction in the village. However, he denied the factum of recovery. No witness in defence has been examined by any of the appellants. However, they tendered into evidence the complaint Exhibit DA. Mr. Ganeriwala argued that so far as Niranjan Singh is concerned, his name has surfaced only during the interrogation of co-accused Mohan Lal and the extra judicial confession made by co-accused is not admissible in evidence and thus cannot be relied upon. He has further argued that PW 6 ASI Sarwan Kumar has stated that accused Niranjan Singh was not known to him previously. As such he was seen by the police party for the first time, as they never knew him earlier, especially when the occurrence took place at 12.45 AM (mid-night), identity of Niranjan Singh accused was not established. It was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to give features of Niranjan Singh in the FIR or in the Court. He has been identified for the first time in Court while standing in the dock. It has been further argued that since the photographs Exhibits P4 to P6 show that the car had overturned and was seen lying turtle, it is unnatural and improbable that Niranjan Singh would be able to Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -5- escape and will not be apprehended by the police officials, who were many in number. It is further argued that the very fact that Mohan Lal appellant had suffered multiple abrasions/fractures shows that only he was present in the car and Niranjan Singh has been implicated subsequently. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Ganeriwala, I am of the view that the prosecution has not only failed to prove the identity of Niranjan Singh appellant, rather there are other circumstances also which suggest that he was not present at the spot, firstly, he would not have been allowed to escape when the car already being chased by the police party had overturned. The very fact that only Mohan Lal was injured, rules out the presence of Niranjan Singh at the spot. As such he deserves acquittal. Taking into account the very fact that Mohan Lal has been arrested at the spot and that too due to overturning of the car and was got medico legal examined and found to have suffered multiple abrasions coupled with the fact that the deposition of the witnesses qua him inspires confidence, goes to prove that he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 filed by Mohan Lal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. However, Criminal Appeal No. 535-SB of 2006 preferred by Niranjan Singh succeeds, the conviction and sentence awarded by Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 2005 -6- the Court below qua him is hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge January 11, 2008. `ask'