State of Haryana vs Smt. Sonia

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present application, u/s 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal, has been filed against the judgment dated 18.8.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby Sonia, respondent was acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 448 dated 21.5.2007, registered u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.5.2007, a police party headed by ASI Rattan Singh and some other police officials were on patrolling in City Sirsa. Near Copy Chand Seed Factory, Sirsa a woman having yellow coloured plastic bag on her head, was seen coming on foot. The police party got suspicion and stopped her and asked her to search her bag. A notice u/s 50 of the Act was served upon her and asked her to be searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. She reposed her confidence in PW7 ASI Rattan Singh. On search of her bag, Ganja was recovered from it. Two samples of 100 grams each were separate from the bulk and converted into separate parcels. The remainder alongwith the polythene and plastic bag when were weighing it came out 7 Kgs. It was also converted into a parcel and sealed with seal "RS". After use the specimen seal impression and seal were handed over to PW8 Om Parkash. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. The sample parcels were sent to FSL Madhuban for chemical examination. Prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was charged u/s 20 of the Act as the contents of the parcel being Ganja. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to bring home guilt to the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and closed its evidence.

In her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused person denied all the incriminating circumstances against her in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. She did not lead any defence evidence and closed her evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent by giving her the benefit of doubt.

Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the State has filed this application u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C, seeking leave to appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent. He further submits that despite best efforts of the police, no independent witnesses has come forward to join the prosecution case.

Heard and perused.

The learned trial court has noticed that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW2 Madan Lal, PW7 Rattan Singh and PW OM Parkash Ranbir Singh and therefore, the prosecution case is highly doubtful. Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment of learned trial Court are reproduced as under:

I may also mention that there are some discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Firstly PW2 Madan Lal has deposed that there were five police officials in the Govt. Jeep whereas PW7 Rattan Singh has deposed that the said police party consisted of 6-7 persons including the driver and PW8 Om Parkash has deposed that they were seven police officials. PW7 Rattan Singh has deposed that only one factory namely Gopi Chand Seeds Factory was near the place of recovery whereas PW8 Om Parkash has deposed that there were 5-7 factories near the said place. PW7 has deposed that there were some residential houses behind the factory whereas PW8 has deposed that there was no residential house near the place of recovery. PW7 Rattan Singh deposed that he alongwith PW8 Om Parkash and HC Tirlok Chand did the writing work at the spot whereas PW8 Om Parkash has deposed that some writing was done by PW-7 Rattan Singh and some by HC Tirlok Chand. The said variations in their respective depositions by the above stated prosecution witnesses, go to show that one of them has deposed falsely or one/ two of them was / were not present at the recovery place. Further PW7 and PW8 have deposed that some writing work was done in the light of the jeep. How it is so, has not been explained.

I may also mention that the accused has taken a defence that her husband is running a Dhaba near Gopi Chand Seed Factory and since he did not oblige the police people, she was falsely implicated in the instant case. Considering her defence and the non-commercial quantity of the alleged contraband, the chances of her false implication cannot be ruled out.

Accordingly, the appellant-respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court Court has rightly evaluated the evidence produced by the complainant and, the findings recorded do not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. The view taken by the learned trial Court is correct and even if other view is possible, this Court will hesitate to take another possible view. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the view taken by the learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment. No ground is made out to grant leave to appeal. Declined.