As? HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR B:;l S.B. : H^>B'BLB SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVA8TAVA Crhninal^Appea! No. 1193 of 2001 Naau Rani Tawar, Versus State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT .'•^ hf l POST FOR ^o - g-2005 X..' •% HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Aopeal No. 1193 of 2001 Appellant (In JaU Custody) Nanu Raia Tawar, S/o Mange LalTawar Thakur, aged about 22 years, R/o VUlage Khardanta, P.S. Balta, District Jalabad, Rajasthaa Versus Respoadeat State ofChhattisgarh, Through P.S, Civil Liae, Raipur, District Raipur, Chliattisgarh Mr. S.C.Verma, counselforthe appeUaat. Mr. J.D.Bajpai, Additional PubUc Prosecutor for fhe respondent/ State. JU.D^MEJ^T (DeUveredon3s -<t-20051 Per Vijav Kumar Shrlvastava, J. This appeal has been directed agam.st fb.e judginent of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-10-2001 passed by Special Judge, Raipur ia Special Crmunal Case No.93/99, whereby convictm.g the appeUaat for coTnTnittuig aa offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs aud Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'fhe Act)) aad sentencing the appeBant to uiidergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.l Latch, in defaiilt of payment offine to undei^o additional R.I. for 1 year. ^ 2. On 12-10-1999 m the midnight around 2.45 A.M,, a report was received in PoUce Station Civil Liue, Raipur that soiue persons have entered a house ia Shaiikar Nagar Khamhardih aad are assaulting fhe inlLabitants. On receiviag fhe said uifomiation, Sub-Inspector Rajesh Tiwari, after inaking entiy in fhe daily diary acconipaiued with ofher Police StafF proceeded for the spot. When Rajesh Tiwari. was investigatmg the iacident, he received further information from. aa. infonner fhat four persons having airbags in fheu~ possession are sittmg behind bus stand, where soiue coustruction has been done aad they have iu fheir possession drugs. Rajesh Tiwan recorded a Paiichnaina aad sent fhe same to Cily Superintendent of Police, Civil Liae, Raipur. He caUed witaesses Sadik AU aad Awadhesh Mishra aiid accoinpaaied with these witnesses aad staff went to tlie spot. He found the appeBant sittrng with his other conipaaions. AU of thein have fheir airbags. The appeUant was given information fhat PoUce has received infonnation fhat he is ia possession of drugs aud fhe appeUant was also uifonned fhat if he destres his search can be m.ade by aay Gazetted Of&cer or Magistrate, but fhe appeUaat gave his consent for search by Sub-Inspector Rajesh Tiwari huuself. The consent was recorded aad ia presence of witnesses, after necessaiy formalities, ftie bag ia possession of ttie appeUant was searched. On search, 2 Kitogram.s Opiuxn was found. Out offhat Opium., two saiaples of25 Granis each for cheiiucal examination have been prepared. AU the Opium recovered was seized. The appeUaat was arrested. Paachiiama was prepared on fhe spot. Dehati Nalisi and F.I.R. was rccorded, seized property was kepf under custody in Matkhaaa after necessacy entries in the Property Register. Samples have been sent to F.S.L., Sagar for examuiation^i'ho after examination gave opiuion that fhe seized properh7 is impure coagulated juice ofopiuni poppy haviag 4.28% niorphiae fhereia. After coinpletion of fh.e uivestigation, the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court ofSpecial Judge-for trial. 3. Charge under Section 18 of tlie Act has been fraxued agaiust fhe appeUaiit. Charge was read over and explained to him, who abjured his guilt. The appellaat's defence is fhat he is ianocent. He has been falsely implicated iii fhis case. 4. Leamed trial Court, after evaluatmg the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held fhat fhe appeUaat was found iu possession of 2 Kilograms flUcit Opiuin aad thereby coimiiitted aa offence punishable uuder Section 18 of the Act and hence tfae appeUaat was senteneed. 5. Bofh. the parties are heard. Record of trial Court is perused. 6. The appeUaat's contentioa is tiiat independent witaiesses Syed Sadik AU, P.W.-6 and Awadhesh Mishra, P.W.-7, were tumed hostile aud bofh fhe witnesses did not sypport fhe prosecution case, fherefore, the onty stateiiieirt of^Rajesh Tiwari, P.W.-8, who is a Police Of&cer cannot be rcUed on for convictitig the appeUaat. On the other hand, leamed counsel for fhe respondeat/State contended fhat fhough Rajesh Tiwari is a PoUce OfScer, his evidence, however, if ofherwise acceptable to fee true, caruiot be discarded iiierely on fhe ground of his being a Police Officer. tii i; l' -^- 7. Hon'ble the Apex Court ia fhe matter ofKaramJit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administrationl, reported la 12Q03L^SCC^91 has held fhat fhe testuaonv of Police Personiiel should be treated ui fhe sanae niauaer as testnnony of aay other witnesses aad their testunony could be reUed upon wifhout beiug corroborated by fhe testnnony of iadependent witnesses. It is further held fh.at presuiuption fhat a person acts honestly applies as inuch in favour of a Police Personnel as of ofher persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust aild suspect fheia without good grounds. Hon'ble fhe Apex Court in the inatter of Abdul Majid Abdul Hak Ansari vs. State of Gu.jarat, reported in (2003} 10 SCC 198 also held fhat conviction can be based on fhe evidence of Police Witaess. ^.v' '»•' 8. Rajesh Tiwari, P.W.-8, who is Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Liae, Raipur, ia his evidence bas deposed fhat on 12-10-1999 in midnight at 2.45 A.M., Sub-Iiispector P.K.Sahu received in&nnation from. Coatrol-Rooia that sonie persons have entered in. a house ia Shaitkar Nagar Khamhardih and are beating inhabitaitts, therefore, receiving fhis iafonnation, he accoiupanied wittt Police Staff proceeded for the spot Necessary eatries have been inade ui Sanlia, Ex. P-18. While searchiag fhe culpnt, when he reached bus stand, he received iafonnation froin aa informer fhat inside ftie building, under construction, behlnd bus staiid, four persons having airba^s are sitdag ia a suspicious condition aad it is possible that fhey iiiay have teept drugs, fherefore, iafonnation Pauchiiaina, Ex. P-2 has been prepared by hiin aad he serit a copy of if to C.S.P., Vineet Kharma^—He also prepared iti presence of 'r:'" •f-r~- iinimtfitwiwiimuthtf-' wituesses Ex.P-15 mformation Paachnaina. He farther deposed that he caUed witaesses Sadik AU and Awadhesh Mishra and accouipaided with tliese witaesses aad staffreached fhe spot, where fhe appeUaat accoiapanied with his fhree coinpanions was fouud. AU fhose persons had airbags. He gave in&rmation to the appeUaut fhat he has leceived iafonnation regarding possession of drugs ia his bag. The appellaat was also given infonnation fhat he is entifled to be got searched by Gazetted Ofiicer or Magistrate but fhe appeUant gave consent for search to be m.ade by Rajesh Tiwari himself. The appeUant was given written notice i.e. Ex.P-6 and fhe appeUaat gave his consent i.e. Ex.P-16. One of fhe appellant's cojnpaiiions Narayaa recorded Ex.PftS. After obtaiiung consent, he aad Assistaat Sub-Inspector Hardeo given fheir search in presence of the witnesses to fhe appeUant aad a Panchnama to tfais efFect was prepared i.e. Ex.P-7. The appeUant's bag was searched and fi-oifl. bag Opiuia was recovered. That search ineiao was prepared i.e. Ex. P-8. Opium. was got weighed aad two satnples of 25 Granis each were separated. Property recovered aud samples were sealed. Pauchiiama, Ex. P-4 was prepared. Seizure laeiuo, Ex. P-10 was also prepared. The appeUaat was arrested and reason behind his arrest was stated to tiim. AU fhe proceediags have been recorded in a Panchiiama in preseuce of witnesses i.e. Ex. P-13. He icCord.ed Dehati NaUsi, Ex.P-20, seized Opium. has been deposited in fhe Property-Rooin after necessaiy entries in Propert}r-Registeri.e. Ex.P- 5. Seizure arid arrest was iafonned to C.S.P. vide Ex.P.-S. Seized sample Opium has been sent to F.S.L., Sagar and necessary entries regarding to and fro journey perfonned by the Constable has been made in Sanlia. Those_entries are Ex.P-22, P-23 aad P-24. After 6 cheinical examiaation, report Ex. P-25 has been received froru the F.S.L. 9. Syed Sadik AU, P.W.-6 aad Awadhesh Mishra, P.W.-7, both these witnesses are independent Panch witnesses, but bofh these witaesses did not support the prosecution version aad have been declared hostile. Both these witaesses have admitted fheir signature on various docuxaents but did uot support fhe recitals of those doczunents. 10. Ex. P-2 aad P-3 sent 'to C.S.P. were received bv his 'G'i-l Reader Kishore Soni and Kishore Soni, P.W.-2 in his evidence proved tiie said fact. Viaeet Khanna, P.W.-5 has also proved fhat Ex. P-2 aad P-3 have been received by his Reader, who submitted both these documents before hiin. Vineet Kharuia, P.W.-5 is C.S.P. Mona Madasi, P.W.-3 in Tcna stateinent proved fhe fact fhat he we^hed fhe seized ardcle aad also two sample bags of 25 Grams each and also proved the weighiag Paachnaaia, Ex. P-4. Ramgopal Sharma, P.W.-l vide his stateinent proved the fact fhat he took the sealed property fi-oia Police Station to F.S.L., Sagar along with lctter written by Superintendent ofPoUce i.e. Ex.P-l. He also proved that packet was marked as 'A' and he delivercd fhe packet on 20-10- 1999 to F.S.L. Report, Ex.P-25 also establishes the fact fhat property received by F.S.L. was ia sealed condition aad the seal was taU}Tng witli the sample seal and on examiaation of fhe properbr, tlie seized property was found to be impure coagulated juice of opium poppy haviag 4.28% morglunejlie^j'. 11. The stafement of Ram.gopal Sharma, P.W.-l, Kishore Soni, P.W.-2, Mona Madasi, P.W.-3, Urmfla Prasad Pandey, P.W.-4, Vineet Khaana, P.W.-5 and Rajesh Tiwari, P.W.-8 have been tested on cross-exaiiunation, but nothing substaatial has been brought ia fheir cross-examination so as to discredit fheir stateinent. 12. The appeUaat's defence is tbat he has been falsely implicated. Not aa iota of evidence is fhere to suggest that aay of ftie witnesses has auy aiiimus agaiast the appeUant. Why a PoUce Officer wiU falsely uaplicate the appeUant, to explam it also, thei-e is nothing on record. Even the appeHant in bis examination does not say a single word why he has been falsely impUcated. 13. Although fhe evidence of Rajesh TwSin, P.W.-8 did not find support fium the statemeat of Syed Sadik Ali, P.W.-6 and Awadhesh Mishra, P.W.-7, yet on four comers lus evidence has been supported by other witnesses, Ramgopal Sharma, P.W.-l, Kisliore Soni, P.W.-2, Mona Madasi, P.W.-3, Umula Prasad Paadey, P.W.-4 aad Viaeet Khanna, P.W.-5 so also his oial evidence is duly supported by various documents prepared regardiag search and seizure and also senditig uiformation forthwifh to superior ofBcials. 14. Rajesh TBvari, P.W.-8, aa officer empowered to take search, on receiviug information fprfhwith sent report to his superior officer, gave information to fhe appeBaat ui accoidaiice wifh Section 50 of the Act and also- conducted search in accordance with proper procedure.AU fhe docuuients have been prepared on fhe-spot and also Dehati NaUsi was recorded. Wifhia prescribed ^•' period report was also sent to C.S.P. in accordaace with Section 57 of the Act. 15. Leamed trial Court has also veiy ininutely evaluated the evidence adduced by fhe prosecution aad after evaluating the evidence held fhat fhe appeUant was found ia possession of 2 Kilograms Opiuiu. Froiu the aforesaid evidence on record when fhe evidence of Police Officer was reliable aud was not suffered froni anv infirmity, even no substaace was brought to shcw ttiat fhe Police Officer has any auimus with the appeUant or has any reason to believe that Police Officer wUl falsely itaplicated fhe appeUaut, tus evidence can be acted upon without being corroborated froin the independent witn.esses aud, therefore, the evidence of Rajesh Tiwari, P.W.-8 corroborated froin other various coraers and docuinents was credible and on his evidence it was estabUshed'that the appeUflut was ia possessiou of 2 Kilograms Ulicit Opium.. 16. The fiiidiag arrived at aad sentence passed by learued tnal Court do not appear to be erroneous. In ftie result, fhe appeal fails. The judginent of conviction aad order of sentence passed by fhe trial Court is mauitaiaed. Appeal disinissed. Sdf- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ^. 3in>:rh