Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 Date of Decision : December 01, 2011 Sarvjeet Singh .... Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Nidhi, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Behl, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sarvjeet Singh accused has filed this criminal appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Special Judge, Ambala, vide judgment dated 18.01.2003 and order dated 21.01.2003 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 2 Prosecution case, in brief, is as under :- On 06.11.2001, police party comprising of SI Rajinder Singh, HC Hardev Singh and other police officials was present at Railway Station, Ambala Cantt. At about 09:20 A.M., the accused was seen coming from the side of Booking Office. He tried to slip away on seeing the police party. He was apprehended on suspicion. Raghbir Singh was associated by the police party. The accused was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. However, the accused declined the offer. Thereupon, the accused was searched and 45 grams heroin wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. Out of it, five grams heroin was separated as sample. Separate parcels of sample and remaining heroin were prepared, sealed and seized by the police. FIR was got registered by sending Ruqa to Police Station. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. The accused, along with witnesses and case property was produced before SI/SHO Ishwar Chand, who, after verifying the case, affixed his own seal on parcels of sample and remaining heroin. Report under Section 57 of the Act was sent to superior officers. The sample, on analysis by Chemical Examiner, was found to be of heroin. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused under Section 21 of the Act. Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 3 Charge under Section 21 of the Act was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. SI Ishwar Chand (PW-1) stated that while he was posted as SHO, the accused along with case property and witnesses was produced before him. He verified the case and affixed his own seal on parcels of sample and remaining heroin. He also recorded formal FIR in the case and also prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and stated accordingly. Raghbir Singh (PW-2), ASI Hardev Singh (previously Head Constable) (PW-3) and SI Rajinder Singh (PW-5) broadly stated according to the prosecution version about recovery of 45 grams of heroin from the accused. SI Rajinder Singh also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. Head Constable Padam Singh (PW-4) and Constable Krishan Lal (PW-6) tendered their affidavits in evidence being formal witnesses. The accused, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. All the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 4 prosecution case. Their veracity could not be impeached in their cross- examination. Statement of ASI Hardev Singh (PW-3) and SI Rajinder Singh (PW-5) are corroborated by sworn statement of independent witness Raghbir Singh (PW-2) and further corroborated by testimony of SI Ishwar Chand (PW-1). There is no reason to doubt or discard the sworn statements of prosecution witnesses. The aforesaid witnesses had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. No suggestion was even put to them in their cross-examination as to why they would depose falsely against the accused. Even the accused, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has not alleged any such ground. He has also not led any evidence in defence to rebut prosecution evidence. On the other hand, the case is of Ambala Cantt., whereas the accused-appellant is resident of Amritsar. There could be no reason for false implication of the accused belonging to Amritsar, by police of Government Railway Police, Ambala Cantt. Statements of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence and are cogent and reliable. Prosecution evidence is thus sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel for the appellant contended that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. However, there is no material contradiction in their statements, which may go to the root of the case. On the other hand, some contradictions are bound to occur even in statements of truthful witnesses, particularly with passage of time. In the Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 5 instant case, Raghbir Singh (PW-2) and ASI Hardev Singh (PW-3) were examined on 16.11.2002 and SI Rajinder Singh (PW-5) was examined on 28.11.2002 i.e. one year after the recovery. On account of lapse of this period also, the alleged contradictions cannot be attached any significance. At the risk of repetition, it may be highlighted that the prosecution witnesses had no reason to implicate the accused in a false case and to depose falsely against him. They had no enmity with the accused and had no motive, malice or ill will against him. The accused was complete stranger to the prosecution witnesses. Thus, false implication is reasonably ruled out. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution has been successful to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is upheld. As regards quantum of sentence, as per Custody Certificate of the appellant, filed today in Court by learned State counsel, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions, the accused-appellant completed his substantive sentence of imprisonment in this case on 25.02.2005 after undergoing actual custody period for 03 years, 03 months and 19 days and earning remission of 08 months and 11 days and he has further undergone sentence of imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine and was released from jail in this case on 24.08.2005, but he was transferred to Central Jail, Amritsar on 26.08.2005 being convict of another case. Thus, in Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 2003 6 the instant case, the accused-appellant has already completed his sentence. Consequently, question of quantum of sentence is now of academic importance only in this case. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. December 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE