IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 105 of 2002 Date of decision: 18.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Vs. Satvinder Singh. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Abhishek Sood, Adovcate, Amicus Curiae. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral) The State is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.10.2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 21-ST/7 of 2001, State of H.P. vs. Satvinder Singh, whereby the respondent herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused, was tried for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') and was ultimately acquitted. 2. As per the case of the prosecution on 21.12.2000 SI Dhani Ram (PW-9) received secret information at about 4:45 p.m. that a huge quantity of poppy husk is available at the house of the accused at Taruwala. Consequently, he entered this information in the daily diary register and sent a copy thereof to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paonta Sahib, and himself proceeded to village Taruwala 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... alongwith other police officials and witnesses Jasbir Singh and Avtar Singh. The accused was available at his house, who was informed in writing whether he wanted to get his house searched by the police or in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The accused consented for search by PW-9 SI Dhani Ram and in token thereof signed the consent memo. Thereafter, SI Dhani gave his own search to the accused in presence of witnesses and then carried out search of the residential house of the accused leading to recovery of poppy husk weighing 2½ kgs, out of which two samples, each weighing 250 grams, were taken out. The samples and the bulk were separately sealed with seal bearing impression 'A' and the same were taken into possession. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that while in police custody the accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a huge quantity of poppy husk in a drum in the bushes behind his house and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement in this regard was recorded in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where the drum containing poppy husk was buried under ground. The drum was taken out and it was found containing 19 packets of poppy husk, which when weighed were found to be 17 kgs. Out of the recovered contraband two samples, each weighing 250 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk were sealed with seal bearing impression 'A' and taken into possession. The recovered contraband alongwith samples, as above, and other articles were produced before SI Parkash Chand at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, who re-sealed the ...3... case property with his own seal having impression 'K' which was thereafter deposited in the police malkhana. On 23.12.2000 MHC Bhim Singh sent four sample packets to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat, for chemical analysis through constable Ram Sarup (PW-5). As per report of the Chemical Examiner, the contents of the samples were found to be of poppy husk. 4. On completion of investigation the accused was sent up to face trial. On being charged, he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. In all, it examined 9 witnesses. 5. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The accused has been acquitted by the learned trial judge mainly on the grounds that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case during the trial. In such situation, when the evidence of the official police witnesses was put to judicial scrutiny the same was found to be full of material contradictions going to the very root of the case and making the genesis of the prosecution case highly doubtful. 7. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent-accused and gone through the records. 8. Be it stated at the very outset that independent witnesses PW-1, Avtar Singh and PW-2, Malkiat Singh did not support the ...4... prosecution case during the trial and both of them were declared hostile. They were subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, but nothing tangible could be extracted out of them. 9. Now, while coming to the version stated by the official police witnesses it would be seen that the same are replete with numerous contradictions which cannot be lightly overlooked. PW-7, Constable Yog Raj, and PW-9, SI Dhani Ram are the two official police witnesses connected with the proceedings said to have been carried out on the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that the secret information was received at about 4:45 p.m. on 21.12.2000 by PW-9, SI Dhani Ram and when he reached village Taruwala, on search recovered poppy husk weighing 2½ kgs from the house of the accused. PW-7 Constable Yog Raj has stated that when he alongwith SI Dhani Ram reached village Taruwala, constable Mohammad Islam told them that poppy husk can be recovered from the house of the accused. However, in this regard a totally different version has been given by PW-9, SI Dhani Ram, who has stated that a telephonic message had been received at the police station regarding availability of a huge quantity of poppy husk at the house of the accused at village Taruwala. In cross-examination he has specifically stated that the informer did not disclose his identity nor he told from where he was imparting the information to the police. According to this witnesses, he even did not recognize the voice of the informer. However, he has stated that since the information was authentic he relied on it and proceeded to village Taruwala. According to him, Constable Mohammad Islam met him at Badripur, who also accompanied the police party in a jeep. He has ...5... denied that the secret information regarding possession of poppy husk with the accused was supplied to him by constable Mohammad Islam. This difference in two versions is in complete contradiction to each other and it appears that both of them were either not together at the given time or have not stated correct version of the background facts about the occurrence. 10. Another discrepancy can be noticed that when the statements of PW-9, SI Dhani Ram and PW-7, Constable Yog Raj are compared, it appears that they were also not together at the relevant time. Constable Yog Raj has stated in his cross-examination that he came back from the police station within half an hour after delivering the rukka there. However, according to rukka, Ex. PJ, the same was sent from the spot at about 6:15 p.m., meaning thereby that Yog Raj had reached back on the spot at about 7 p.m. To the contrary, the statement of PW-9, SI Dhani Ram, suggests that the accused was arrested at 7:30 p.m and thereafter he made a disclosure statement regarding concealment of the drum containing poppy husk. The drum was recovered after recording the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex. PC. If it was so, the disclosure statement should have been recorded by SI Dhani Ram in presence of PW-7, Constable Yog Raj. However, the statement of PW-7 constable Yog Raj suggests that when he came back from Police Station the drum had been kept outside the house of the accused, meaning thereby that at 7 p.m. the drum had already been recovered and brought outside the house of the accused. Thus, each of the two witnesses, namely, PW-9, SI Dhani Ram and PW-7, Constable Yog Raj have contradicted themselves on this aspect ...6... of the matter. 11. Still further another aspect of the matter can also not be lightly overlooked that in NCB form, Ex. PP, against column No. 5 meant for recording date of drawal and dispatch of sample, the date mentioned is 21.12.2000. However, PW-4, HC Bhim Singh has stated that the samples were sent by him on 23.12.2000. In this view of the matter, the link evidence in this case is also not up to the mark. 12. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment, acquitting the accused, is in order and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 18th July, 2011 (virender)