Gobind Sharma vs State Of Punjab

Anil Kshetarpal, J

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and

order of sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further

undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The facts as noticed by the learned trial Court are extracted as under:-

“In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.8.2014 SI Surinder Singh was posted as SI at PS GRP, Bathinda. On that day he along with

other police officials was on patrol duty and checking of suspected persons and smugglers and was present at platform No.6 Northern side. It was

about 2.00 PM, one person was noticed going ahead of the police party. Suddenly he saw on his back and noticed the police party, he tried to slip

away, but he was apprehended on the basis of suspicion by the Investigating Officer with the help of police party. He was having one canvas bag of

white colour with strips in his right hand. Investigating Officer enquired about the whereabouts of accused, who told his name as Gobind Sharma.

Investigating Officer introduced himself to the accused and gave him an option that he has suspicion of some contraband in his possession and search

of bag carried by him is to be conducted . Investigating Officer further informed the accused about his legal right to get his search conducted in the

presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but the accused reposed faith in the Investigating Officer. His consent memo was prepared, which was

attested by HC Gurmit Singh and HC Karnail Singh and thumb marked by the accused. On search of the bag with the accused, 10 vials of Rexcof of

Cipla company each of 100 Ml were recovered. Investigating Officer separated one vial of Rexcof as sample and prepared a sample parcel.

Remaining 9 vials of Rexcof were also converted into parcel. Investigating Officer sealed both the parcels with his seal bearing impression 'SS'.

Sample seal was prepared separately. Seal after use was handed over to HC Gurmit Singh. Form No.29 was filed in by the investigating officer at the

spot. Both the parcels of the case property along with sample seal slip and form No.29 were taken into police possession vide recovery memo, which

was witnessed by the witnesses. Personal search of the accused was conducted. Ruqa was sent to the police station through HC Karnail Singh and

on its basis, formal FIR was registered by Inspector Bant Singh. Rough site plan was prepared by the investigating officer. Accused was arrested vide

arrest memo and information of arrest memo was also prepared. Special Report was sent to DSP GRP Sh. Hardeep Singh. Statements of the

witnesses were recorded. As per the case of the prosecution after completion of spot investigation, on return to the police station, investigating officer

produced the accused, along with entire case property, sample seal and personal search before officiating SHO SI Sukhdev Singh, who verified the

facts from the investigating officer and the accused. Thereafter he checked and compared the seals and also affixed his own seal bearing impressions

'SS' on both the parcels vide entrustment memo. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared by the SI Harjinder Singh. On receipt of

report from Chemical Examiner and after completion of other necessary formalities, the instant challan was presented against the accused in the

Court.â€​

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW-1 SI Surinder Singh, PW-2 HC Gurmeet Singh, PW-3 HC Jasvir Singh and PW-4 SI

Sukhdev Singh. PW-1, Surinder Singh is the Investigating Officer whereas PW-2, HC Gurmeet Singh accompanied him. In fact, they were four

persons in the police party. However, the remaining two were not examined. PW-3, Jasvir Singh is the official who took the sample parcel to the

Forensic Science Laboratory whereas PW-4, SI Sukhdev Singh is the person before whom the Investigating Officer produced the accused-appellant

at Police Station GRP, Bathinda. It is the case of the prosecution that Bant Singh was Station House Officer (SHO) but since he was not present,

therefore, Sukhdev Singh, PW-4 was working as officiating SHO at Police Station GRP, Bathinda. Total recovery from the accused-appellant is 10

small bottles of rexcof of Cipla company each having quantity of 100 ml. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced as noticed

above. That is this appeal has been filed through legal aid.

In the present case, the learned trial Court has overlooked the material illegalities and contradictions in the case put forth by the prosecution. The

accused-Gobind Sharma is an illiterate, working as a labourer. He is alleged to have been apprehended with 10 bottles of rexcof made by Cipla

company at platform No.6 of the Railway Station by the police party. It is admitted by Surinder Singh, the Investigating Officer while appearing as

PW-1 in witness-box that the signatures of the accused on the bulk parcel prepare were not obtained. It is also admitted that the seal on the bulk

parcel is broken. No batch number, serial number, manufacturing or other particulars of the case property were mentioned. Still further, in

examination-in-chief, Surinder Singh states that he filled form No.29 Ex.P-3 partially at the spot whereas in cross-examination, he stated that the entire

form No.29 from point A to B was filled by me at that spot. He further states that no independent witness was joined by the police. He has further

stated that the seal was given to the members of the police party who returned the seal to him on the next date. There are other material

contradictions as in-chief, he states that he sent Special Report Ex.P-11 from the spot to Deputy Superintendent of Police, GRP, Sub-Division,

Ferozepur. However, in cross-examination, he states that he had not sent the Special Report in the present case. Even HC Gurmeet Singh who was

member of the police party and examined by the prosecution has stated that no intimation was sent to the superior or Gazetted Officer from the spot.

He admitted that Bant Singh was the regular SHO on that day. However, the case property or the accused was produced before SI Sukhdev Singh.

Gurmeet Singh also admits that no independent witness was joined by the police party, although, he states that efforts were made but persons present

there refused to join.

On careful examination of the statement of PW-4, SI Sukhdev Singh who is stated to be officiating SHO of Police Station also makes an interesting

reading. He admits that the case property was kept by him in Almirah in Malkhana. He admits that he did not deposit the case property with the

regular SHO. He admits that there is no rapat regarding my working as officiating SHO. He admits that no second sample of the intoxicant recovered

was drawn. He admitted that Inspector Bant Singh was posted as SHO but he cannot tell the exact time when the regular SHO left the Police Station

and he cannot tell the exact time when the regular SHO returned in the Police Station. Still further, on careful examination of form No.29, it is

apparent that Sukhdev Singh is not telling the correct facts. As per Investigating Officer, Surinder Singh and HC Gurmeet Singh, they reached the

Police Station at about 6.00 PM on 24.08.2014. However, Sukhdev Singh who has signed on form No.29 as Station House Officer bears the date i.e.

25.08.2014. No explanation has been given as to why Sukhdev Singh signed form No.29 on 25.08.2014 although he admits that the Investigating

Officer produced the accused and the case property along with form No.29 on 24.08.2014 at 6.00 PM. All these facts when analyzed cumulatively, it

is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The facts as noticed above bring forth many unanswered

questions in the case put forth by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The bail bonds submitted by the appellant shall stand discharged.

Appeal is allowed.