Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 Date of Decision : September 19, 2011 Jarnail Singh .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jarnail Singh accused has file the instant criminal appeal to assail his conviction and sentence recorded by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2003, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for ten days. Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 2 Prosecution case is that on 02.12.2000, police party headed by SI Gajjan Singh was present at T-Point on Dhamoli Road, Bye-pass, Rajpura. PW Om Parkash also came there. In the meantime, accused Jarnail Singh was seen coming with a plastic bag on his shoulder. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to go back, but was apprehended on suspicion. Offer was given to the accused to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused desired to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, wireless message was sent and DSP R. K. Sharma reached the spot. Thereafter, on search of bag of the accused, it was found to contain poppy husk. Out of it, two samples of poppy husk weighing 250 grams each were separated and the remaining poppy husk weighed 4½ kilograms. Separate parcels of samples and the remaining poppy husk were prepared and sealed and were seized by the police. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station City, Rajpura, where on its basis, FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Accused was arrested. 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 15 of the Act. Charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 3 In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Constable Sarabjit Singh (PW-1) and Head Constable Bhinder Singh (PW-5) are formal witnesses. They tendered their affidavits in evidence. ASI Amarjit Singh (PW-2) (who was also in the police party), DSP R. K. Sharma (PW-3) and SI Gajjan Singh (PW-4) broadly stated according to the prosecution version about recovery of five kilograms poppy husk from the accused and about other proceedings. SI Gajjan Singh also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. SI William Jeji (PW-6) stated that he was posted as SHO of Police Station City, Rajpura on 02.12.2000. SI Gajjan Singh presented before him accused Jarnail Singh along with witnesses and case property. The SHO verified the recovery of contraband poppy husk from the accused and affixed his own seal on the case property. He also prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and stated accordingly. 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. In defence, the accused examined Hans Raj (DW-1). He stated that the accused was taken from his house by the police and nothing was recovered from him. The accused was drunk and unconscious at that time. Learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, vide impugned judgment Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 4 and order dated 03.05.2003, convicted and sentenced the accused, as already noticed herein before. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant criminal appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. All the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be shaken in cross- examination. They had no reason to implicate the accused in false case or to depose falsely against the accused. Statements of SI Gajjan Singh (PW- 4) and ASI Amarjit Singh (PW-2) regarding recovery of contraband poppy husk from the possession of the accused, are corroborated by DSP R. K. Sharma (PW-3). No suggestion was given to these three witnesses as to why they were implicating the accused in false case. Even the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not plead any ground for his false implication. Consequently, statement of Hans Raj (DW-1) that the accused was taken from his house by the police, while the accused was drunk and unconscious and nothing was recovered from him, is completely unreliable and result of after thought. No such suggestion regarding the version stated by Hans Raj (DW-1) was even put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Om Parkash – the only independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution. Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 5 However, this contention does not help the appellant because Om Parkash had to be given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. It is not uncommon that independent witnesses in such cases do not like to support the prosecution case so as to avoid enmity with the accused. Moreover, statements of the police officials i.e. ASI Amarjit Singh (PW-2), DSP R. K. Sharma (PW-3) and SI Gajjan Singh (PW-4) cannot be discarded merely because of their official status and garb because they were not hostile to the accused in any manner. They had no bias, ill-will or enmity against the accused so as to implicate him in a false case or to depose falsely against him. Consequently, their statements are as much credible as those of so called independent witnesses. There is no reason to discard the statements of these three police officials. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution has led sufficient cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, perusal of Custody Certificate filed today in Court by State counsel reveals that the appellant had already remained in custody for three months and twelve days since his arrest till he was released on bail. Fine amount was also paid in the trial court as revealed by trial court file. Thus, the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence. Consequently, the question of quantum of sentence is of academic importance only. Even otherwise, sentence of imprisonment for Crl. Appeal No. 1344-SB of 2003 6 three months and fine of Rs.100/- only cannot be said to be excessive by any standards so as to warrant reduction in this appeal. As a necessary corollary of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE