-1- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. Date of Decision: May 07, 2010. Narinderjit Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the appellant-applicant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Narinderjit Singh (appellant) has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 19.05.2004 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr, whereby he was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten -2- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. years and to pay Rs.1 lac as fine, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Balbir Singh, co-accused of the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him by the trial Court whereas Baljinder Sisngh, another co-accused of the appellant, absconded and was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the trial Court. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 24.11.1999, Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh along with Assistant Sub Inspector Bikkar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, Head Constable Kashmir Singh, Constable Narinder Singh, Constable Tej Bhan and S.P.O Dilbagh Singh were patrolling the area in a Zypsy which was being driven by Constable Ashok Kumar. They put up a 'Naka' at the bridge of canal minor in the area of village Kaleran for checking vehicles and suspicious elements. In the meantime a Matador bearing registration No. DL-ICE-4047 came there from the side of village Kaleran. It was about 2.30 A.M and the lights of the said Matador were off. With the help of the search light, Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh signalled the Driver to stop the Matador. It was stopped and two persons, namely Baljinder Singh (Proclaimed Offender) and Balbir Singh (acquitted accused) alighted from the vehicle and fled away towards village Kaleran. Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh knew Baljinder Singh and Balbir Singh as they were notorious smugglers. The driver of the said car was, however, apprehended by the police who disclosed his name as Narinderjit Singh (appellant-accused). Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh told appellant Narinderjit Singh that there was something suspicious in -3- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. the Matador and that search of the same was required to be made. The Investigating Officer apprised accused-appellant Narinderjit Singh of his right being searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused-appellant reposed faith in the Investigating Officer and asked him to search the vehicle. Consent memo of the appellant in this regard was prepared. In the meantime Paramjit Singh @ Pappu, an independent witness came there and was joined in the police party as a witness. There Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh contacted Deputy Superintendent of Police Pushkar Sandal on walkie-talkie and asked him to reach at the spot. On reaching the spot, Deputy Superintendent of Police Pushkar Sandal disclosed his identity to the accused as a Gazetted Officer and apprised the accused-appellant of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate. The accused opted that search of his Matador be made in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh searched the Matador and found that five gunny bags were lying on the rear side of the cabin and 11 gunny bags were lying in the dicky of the said Matador. Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh opened all the bags and found that all bags contained poppy husk . He put mark on the said bags from B-1 to B- 16. 250 grams of poppy husk was separated from each bag as sample. He also put marks as S-1 to S-16 on the said sample parcels. On weighment, 34 kgs 750 grams of poppy husk was found in each bag. Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh,thereafter, sealed all the bags with his seal bearing impression 'PS' and with the seal of Deputy -4- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. Superintendent of Police bearing impression 'PS'. The samples and the poppy husk contained in sixteen bags were separately sealed and were taken into possession by the police. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station through Constable Tej Bhan and on its basis formal First Information Report was registered against the accused- appellant. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The accused-appellant was formally arrested and memo containing grounds of his arrest (Exhibit PG) was prepared. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit PK) and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was put in Court. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Assistant Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh, Constable Bal Kishan, Assistant Sub Inspector Bikkar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Pushkar Sandal, Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh and Station House Officer Surinder Mohan. The independent witness, namely, Paramjit Singh alias Pappyu was not examined by the prosecution and given up as having been won over by the accused. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellant Narinderjit Singh took up the plea that nothing was recovered from him. The police had taken him away from his house five-six days prior to the alleged occurrence and was kept in illegal custody. Thereafter, this false -5- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. case was planted on him. The Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that sixteen bags of poppy husk were recovered from him. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts of this case, as mentioned above, disclose that there is no doubt about the fact that the accused- appellant was in conscious possession of the quantity of poppy husk recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case of the prosecution is based only on the statements of the official witnesses and the only independent person, namely, Paramjit Singh alias Pappu was not examined by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the police witnesses being interested in the success of the case, their statements should not be trusted without corroboration from an independent source. It has been submitted that non-examination of the independent witness, namely, Paramjit Singh alias Pappu, has upset the balance of the prosecution case, making the alleged recovery doubtful. After giving a careful thought to the argument raised by the learned counsel, I do not find any force therein in the presence of cogent and trustworthy evidence put forth by the prosecution. It is a matter of common knowledge that the -6- Criminal Appeal No. 1179-SB of 2005. independent witnesses, normally, do not support the prosecution case as they reside in the same area where the accused-persons reside and they fear to create ill-will and enmity with criminals. In this case, the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and no material contradiction, worth the name, has been pointed out in their statements. The recovery in this case was made per chance. Merely the fact that the independent witness Paramjit Singh alias Pappu was not examined in this case, is not a sufficient ground to discard the testimonies of the official witnesses. It is well-settled that the prosecution story cannot be discarded on the ground that independent witness has not been examined. To cap it all, the fact of recovery of sixteen bags of poppy husk, each containing 35 kilograms of poppy husk, from the accused, which cannot be planted by the police, weighs with the argument raised by the learned counsel with regard to the non-examination of any independent witness. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. May 07, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE