IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No.1300 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.9.2009 Smt.Veena Rani. ....... Petitioner through Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.2 through Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate. Respondent no.5 through Shri P.K.Longia, Advocate. None for other respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. Crl.Misc.No.32151 of 2008 For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and seven days' delay in the filing of the revision petition is condoned. Crl.Revision Petition No. 1300 of 2008 This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 3.1.2008 of the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra (hereinafter Crl.Revision Petition No.1300 of 2008 -2- .... referred to as `the trial Court') vide which respondent nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges against them under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Pshychotropic Substances Act,1986 (for short, `the Act') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The allegations against respondent nos. 2 to 5 were that they in connivance with each other had clandestinely tried to plant opium in the house of the complainant-petitioner so as to involve her in the commission of the offence under the Act. It was alleged that respondent no.2-Rajesh Kumar at the instance of respondent no.4- Prem Dhiman had gone to the house of the petitioner for planting opium weighing 150 grams. Respondent no.3-Anita Sharma was involved on the basis of the confessional statement made by respondent no.4 and similarly, respondent no.5-Sat Pal was wrapped by respondent no.3 in her confessional statement, who stated that he was the person, who had supplied 150 grams of opium to her for the purpose of planting the same at the house of the petitioner. The above mentioned confessional statements were discarded by the trial Court being extremely weak type of evidence. No evidence was produced by the prosecution to show that respondent no.4 accompanied respondent no.2 for the purpose of planting opium at the house of the petitioner, so much so the opium which is alleged to have been planted, its recovery, its sampling was not proved by the prosecution. There were serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, besides heightened improbabilities in the manner of occurrence. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with her brother- Vinod Kumar and Sub Crl.Revision Petition No.1300 of 2008 -3- .... Inspector Baljeet Singh had concocted the story in order to falsely implicate respondent nos. 2 to 5. The motive for implicating respondent no.3 apparently seemed to be the marriage of her daughter with Rahul, the son of the petitioner, which was without parental consent and was obviously not to the liking of the petitioner. That apart, the trial Court weighed the ponderables in the case. The petitioner admitted that she did not know respondent no.2-Rajesh Kumar prior to the incident and it is intriguing as to how he was permitted to enter the house without there being any formal acquaintance. She has further stated that she knew respondent no.4-Prem Dhiman through one Mr. Walia, but in cross-examination, she deposed that she did not know Mr.Walia. All these factors when taken cumulatively together, pointed out to the gross inconsistency in the prosecution case and, therefore, the acquittal awarded by the trial Court to respondent nos. 2 to 5 cannot be faulted. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. September 17,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge