1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 299/1997 Decided on: August 25 , 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Baldev Krishan & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 6.3.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, HP in Case No. 6-S/7 of 1995, thereby acquitting the respondents / accused for the offences under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per prosecution, Baldev Krishan and his wife Rano Gupta hired taxi being registration No. PB-11-E-3100 for Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 coming to Shimla. When Taxi reached at Dharampur, Sh. R.R. Thakur, SHO, Police Station, Dharampur happened to be there on a traffic checking, who received information that the accused were carrying contraband goods. As such, the said Maruti van was intercepted. Besides accused, there were three children sitting in the Maruti van. Sh. R.R. Thakur expressed his desire to the accused that whether he wanted to be searched then and there or by Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. On his agreeing, search was made and 1 Kg 90 Grams of ‘Charas’ was recovered from the dicky of Maruti van. Thereafter the samples were taken out and the contraband were sealed with the seal ‘O’. The sample of ‘Charas’ was sent for chemical examination. The case was investigation and the accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed for session trial. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses, whereas, to their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused persons denied the prosecution case. 4. On close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that the ‘Charas’ was recovered from the Dicky of the Car of the accused is also a suspect. Sh.R.R.Thakur (PW-8) is author of the case, he has stated that nothing was recovered from the persons of the accused. As such, effect the search of the Van, from where the contraband referred to above was recovered. The prosecution has produced Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma (PW- 3 7) to corroborate the statement of Sh. R.R. Thakur. Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma is a chance witness. He was friendly with Sh.R.R. Thakur and happened to be per chance on the spot from where the ‘Charas’ is alleged to have been recovered from the Dicky of the Van of the accused. He has clarified that when he reached on the spot then bag Ex P1 Charas was in the hands of a Policeman. He was informed by the police that it had been recovered from the Maruti Van. The statement of Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma (PW-7) could not withstand the test of cross examination and has to admit that he has stated at the instance of the police. The third eye witness is Sh. Sant Singh (PW-6). He has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile on the request of learned P.P. because he did not state that the bag which was recovered from the van contained ‘Charas’ Ex P-1. These were the three witnesses on the basis of which the prosecution has tried to establish that the said quantity of ‘Charas’ was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused at Dharampur when the Dicky of their Taxi (Maruti Van) was searched. 5. The statement of Sh. Nutan Parshad (PW-5) Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is preposterous. He has stated that the accused Baldev Krishan and his wife Rano Gupta were staying at the house of Sh. Suresh Kumar. He has nothing to state regarding the fact that ‘Charas’ was recovered from the car. Sh. Randeep Singh Constable No. 567 (PW-4) had taken Ex PB a note from Sh. R.R. Thakur to Police 4 Station, Dharampur for the registration of the case. The sending of note with Sh. Randeep Singh, PW-4 is as such a farce. Ram Kumar was posted as Dy.S.P. at Solan. He has stated that he has received a Special report on March 6, 1995, copy Ex PC. Sh. Mewa Singh (PW-2) and Uma Dutt HC No. 468 are responsible for sending and taking the sample of ‘Charas’ to CTL, Kandaghat. This aspect of the matter has been already discussed here in above. This is the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution does not inspire confidence regarding recovery of the ‘Charas’ Ex P-1 from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. The search has not at all been effected in the manner as it has been alleged by the prosecution. The facts and circumstances in which Ex P1 is stated do not inspre confidence regarding the truthfulness of its recovery from the possession of the accused persons or any one of them. The ‘Charas’ has been shown to be recovered from the dicky. The accused Rajinder kUmar has been charged under Seciton 182 of Motor Vehicle Act. The allegation against him is that he was driving the Maruti Van without possessing the valid documents of the same. This accusation against the accused has also remained un- substantiated. Even R.R. Thakur, the Investigating Officer of the case, has failed to state on oath that the accused was driving the Maruti Van without possessing valid documents of the same. NO witness of the prosecution has as such stated. 5 6. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that two independent witnesses PW-6 and PW-7 have neither corroborated nor supported the prosecution case and other police officials witnesses cannot be said to have proved the prosecution case. Keeping in view the inconsistencies, contradictions and for lack of support of independent witnesses, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 13. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondents, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 25th August, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl) 6