IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 520 of 2000 Decided on: 23.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Suneel Chandel ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 21.6.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2000, whereby accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offences, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short ‘ND&PS Act’). 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the intervening night of 31.1.2000 and 1.2.2000, at about 4.00 a.m. Sardari Lal, Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Ghumarwin accompanied with other police official apprehended respondent- accused on suspicion for carrying contraband goods and obtaining his consent for being searched by Sardari Lal, on search 25 grams of charas was recovered and out of which two samples each of five grams were taken and put in two separate parcels and same were sealed with Seal impression ‘K’ and same were sent for chemical examination. On investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas the accused-respondent through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. PW-1 ASI Mast Ram, PW-2 LHC Bhuri Singh, PW-3 Prem Thakur, PW-4 HC Vinod Kumar, PW-5 Jai Kishan, PW-6 ASI Deep Ram and PW-7 Inspector Sardari Lal are the prosecution witnesses. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that out of all prosecution witnesses, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution as only independent witness namely Amrit Pal has been given up by the prosecution for the reasons that he was won over by the respondent-accused. Whereas, the place where Nakka was made and search and seizure alleged to have been made large numbers of persons could have been made available, however, there is nothing on 3 record to be divulged by prosecution witnesses that any endeavour was made by the police to associate independent witnesses or no independent witnesses are available. 5. Analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record also reveal that there are major contradictions in the testimony of police officials. The first contradiction is about the place where barrier (Nakka) was laid by the police officials on the intervening night of 31.1.2000 and 1.2.2000. LHC Bhuri Singh PW-2 and Inspector Sardari Lal PW-7 have stated that Nakka was laid at a distance of about 100 yards from the hotel of the respondent-accused in village Majhaun, while ASI Mast Ram PW-1 has stated that the Nakka was laid at a distance of 100 metres from Kandraur bridge towards Ghumarwin side. There is a distance of about one and half kilometer between village Majhaun and Kandraur bridge. As such, there is clear contradiction in between the versions of these witnesses about laying of Nakka. Second contradiction is regarding the type of light which could have been helpful to see the respondent- accused while he was coming towards the barrier and the search and seizure was conducted. Mast Ram PW-1 has stated that they had seen the respondent-accused with the help of emergency light when the respondent-accused was coming towards barrier. He further explained that the emergency light was electric light. He further deposed that the proceedings of the case were conducted with the help of said light. On the other hand, LHC Bhuri Singh PW-2 has stated that he had seen the respondent-accused with the help of moon light when he (respondent-accused) was coming towards the barrier and the 4 proceedings were conducted with the help of torch light. PW-7 Inspector Sardari Lal has stated that he had seen the respondent-accused with the help of moon light and the proceedings of the case were conducted in the light of the vehicle. Such contradictions between the statements of official witnesses regarding the type of light with the help of which respondent-accused was seen and proceedings were conducted were makes the prosecution story doubtful. 6. There appears to be no link evidence on record which shows that the seal was handed over to the independent witnesses after use thereof. Therefore, the possibility of tampering of charas cannot be ruled out. There is also lack of link evidence on record to show that the seals of the parcels remained intact till the same were delivered to the Chemical Examiner. 7. Keeping in view the contradictions, in-consistencies and the fact that two independent witnesses were not associated in search, seizure and recovery, the case of prosecution is not fully proved. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 23, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)