State of H.P. vs Mahender Singh

Sanjay Karol, J.—Assailing the judgment dated 15/2/2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2013 (268 of 2013), titled as State v. Mahender Singh, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), State has filed the present petition for leave to appeal, under the provisions of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Having perused the record, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

Allegedly, the contraband substance, i.e. Charas, weighing 500 grams was recovered from the conscious possession of the respondent on 11.12.2012. Undisputedly, no independent witnesses were associated by the police at the time of recovery. When one examines the testimony of HC Jitender Kumar (PW-7) and Constable Om Prakash (PW-6), who allegedly effected recovery, we find their testimonies to be materially contradicted. Contradiction with regard to time of preparation of Rukka (Ex. PW-7/A), registration of FIR and arrest of the accused, renders prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. Now, if PW-6 had carried the rukka to the police station, then why is that two other police officials, namely Vivek Sharma and Laxman Dass, who were members of the Police Party were not associated at the time of preparation of memo of personal search. Prosecution story is further rendered doubtful, if not false, from the contradiction with regard to the manner in which the search was effected. According to PW-7, they did not have the search light, whereas according to Om Prakash (PW-6), the contraband substance was recovered from the bag with the help of search light.

We further find that link evidence in the present case not to have been proved and established on record. The seal, with which contraband substance was sealed, was not produced in Court. Significantly, reference number of the Register wherein entry was made by MHC with regard to deposit of contraband substance, is the same as that of the report received from the Chemical Examiner.

As such, no ground for grant of leave to appeal is made out. The present petition, without any merit, is dismissed.