Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Inderjit Singh, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two connected criminal appeals; CRA No. D-103-DB of 2007 and CRA No. D-112-DB

of 2007 arising out of the judgment/order dated 18.12.2006, passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing the appellants

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, on each count u/s 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 07.06.1997, Inspector Charan Singh along with SI Bahadar Singh and other police officials

along with Balwant Singh, DSP (D) Khanna was present at Malerkotla road chowk in connection with special checking. At about 8.00 A.M. a

truck bearing No. PUC-8591 came from the side of Mandi Gobindgarh and turned towards Malerkotla road. After giving signal, truck was

stopped. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was driving the truck and Bhinder Singh was sitting by the side of the driver. At that time, Didar Singh,

Sarpanch was also with the police party. DSP Balwant Singh disclosed his identity to the accused that he is a Gazetted Officer and expressed his

desire to search the truck and also told that search could be conducted in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but the accused

shown full faith in the police party. From the search of the truck, 10 bags containing poppy husk were recovered lying under the tarpal of the truck.

Each bag was containing 36 kgs. of poppy husk. Two samples weighing 250 gms. were taken out from each bag. All the samples and the

remaining bags were sealed by the Investigating Officer with the seal C.S. DSP Balwant Singh also put his seal bearing impression B.S. The case

property was taken into police possession. Log-book, permit, receipt regarding goods tax etc. were also taken into police possession. Accused

were arrested. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were

recorded. On reaching Police Station City Khanna, the entire case property was deposited with MHC Hardev Singh with seals intact. The SHO

Police Station City Khanna was not present on that day and the Investigating Officer could not produce the case property before him. On the next

day i.e. on 08.06.1996, the entire case property was collected by the Investigating Officer along with the truck and produced the same before the

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna. The case property was signed by the Presiding Officer. The case property was again deposited in the

Malkhana, on return. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellants.

Finding prima facie case, the appellants were charge-sheeted under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Inspector Charan Singh, Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed the same facts as

stated above. PW-2 HC Hardev Singh who was posted at P.S. City Khanna as MHC mainly deposed regarding depositing of the case property

i.e. samples along with bags including truck etc. He also deposed that on the next day, Investigating Officer again took out the case property and

after the production of the case property before the Court, again deposited the same with him. He further deposed that so long the case property

remained with him, neither he nor anybody else was allowed to tamper with the same. He also deposed that on 18.06.1997, he handed over ten

samples to Constable Inderjit Singh for depositing the same with FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh. PW-3 Constable Inderjit Singh, is the formal witness,

who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4 Balwant Singh DSP (Retd.) also deposed the same facts as per the prosecution

version. PW-5 Mohd. Sadiq, Junior Assistant, now DTO Office Ludhiana mainly deposed that truck bearing No. PUN-8591 was not registered

with them and RC of the said truck was not issued by their office. PW-6 Gurmeet Singh, Junior Assistant, DTO Office, Ludhiana brought the

record and also stated that he cannot tell in whose name RC of the truck was issued as the register is lying blank regarding truck bearing No.

PUC-8591. PW-7 Head Constable Jagtar Singh stated that the permit and payment of goods tax was found to be fake. PW-8 R.D. Gupta,

Section Officer (Retd.), DTO Office, Sangrur also proved the report of Regional Transport Authority, Sangrur. PW-9 SI Bahadar Singh, was with

the Investigating Officer. He also deposed regarding recovery from the accused.

At the close of the evidence, the accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused-appellants denied the correctness of the

evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Blunder Singh stated that he was neither driver of the truck nor cleaner or servant with

Sukhwinder Singh co-accused. He further stated that he was picked up by the police two days prior to the occurrence from the village in the

presence of Harbans Singh Ex-sarpanch and Ujjagar Singh on suspicion and nothing was recovered from him and he has been falsely implicated in

the present case. Accused examined DW-1 Head Constable Om Parkash who brought the register No. 19 of P.S. City Khanna. As per record,

there was no entry showing that the case property was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate etc.

On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Blunder Singh were convicted and

sentenced as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that accused-appellant Sukhwinder Singh has died during the pendency of the appeal. Learned

State Counsel has confirmed this fact from the Sh. Amrik Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Ludhiana Jail and informed the court that the accused-

appellant Sukhwinder Singh has died in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana in custody on 21.01.2011. In view of the above fact, the proceedings against

appellant Sukhwinder Singh are abated.

At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant Bhinder Singh contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Nothing has been recovered from him. He has been picked up from his house as per the defence version. He is neither driver nor employee of the

truck. The witnesses are false and false case has been planted upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the case property was

produced in torn condition and case property was put in new bags which were not sealed and the poppy husk was less in gunny bags at the time of

production in the court at the time of evidence. He also argued that as per DW-1, case property was never produced before the Illaqa Magistrate

as per the record. There was no entry in register No. 19 of the police station City Khanna. He also contended that no independent witness has

been examined in the present case and there are only police officials. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that sentence of

the accused-appellant be reduced.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State has argued that the case of the prosecution has been

duly proved by the statements of PWs. Link evidence is complete. Recovery from the accused has been duly proved. The provisions of NDPS

Act have been complied with. She further argued that due to the period lapsed of so many years in conducting the trial, the gunny bags were torn

which were put into new bags. Therefore, on this ground no benefit can be given to the accused. Learned counsel for the respondent further

argued that MHC and Investigating Officer has specifically deposed that case property was produced before the Magistrate and he has signed the

case property etc. Therefore, even if there is no entry in the register, it cannot be held as fatal to the prosecution case. She, therefore, argued that

the appeal should be dismissed having no merit.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the evidence on record minutely and very

carefully.

From the record firstly we find that contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have no merit. There is no cogent evidence on record

to show that he was picked up from the house etc. or he was not travelling in the truck. PWs have deposed consistently regarding the

apprehension of the accused on the spot and he was sitting along with driver in the truck. The truck was having fake number. All these facts shows

the appellant was having knowledge and was in conscious possession of the poppy husk which was recovered from the truck. There is nothing on

the record that when the appellant boarded the truck and from where. Whether he has taken lift or was employed on the truck. The defence

version has not been proved by bringing any of the witnesses that he was taken away by the police one or two days prior to the occurrence.

Otherwise also, there is no evidence on the record to prove any enmity or motive of the police officials to depose falsely against the accused. DSP

Balwant Singh was with the police party and the recovery was effected in his presence. He is a Gazetted Officer and he has no motive or enmity to

falsely implicate the accused-appellant. PW-1 Charan Singh, Investigating Officer and PW-9 SI Bahadar Singh have also consistently deposed

regarding recovery of the poppy husk. As regarding the fact that old torn bags have been put up in new bags when produced in the Court and

there was some less poppy husk due to leakage etc., we find that in the present case, FIR has been registered in the year 1997 and the case

property was produced in the Court in the year 2005 when the witnesses were examined and this case was decided in the year 2006, which

means that due to the gap of about ten years, there is every possibility that the particulars written on the gunny bags became dim and the bags were

in torn condition. Therefore, on this ground, no benefit to the accused-appellant can be given.

Further, from the evidence on record, we find that even if no entry has been made in register No. 19 of police station City Khanna dealing with

the police Malkhana, even then the Investigating Officer and MHC have appeared as witnesses in the present case and have deposed on oath that

case property was produced before the Magistrate on the next day i.e. on 08.06.1997 and the Presiding Officer has signed the case property and

it was re-deposited in the Malkhana. All the provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with. The Investigating Officer has stated that on that

day, SHO was not present in the police station, therefore, the case property was deposited with the MHC.

From the evidence on record, we find that PWs have consistently deposed as per prosecution version. Link evidence is complete in the

present case. There are no material discrepancies pointed out in the statements by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments.

No material improvements in the statements have been pointed out. The mere fact that no independent witness has been examined, will not create

any doubt in the prosecution version. It is settled law that testimony of police officials is as good as of any other witness, unless any enmity or

motive is alleged and proved against them. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Therefore, from the above, we find that PWs are reliable and truthful witnesses and they have deposed consistently regarding the prosecution

version. Therefore, prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances, we upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant Blunder Singh. As regarding the prayer

regarding reducing the sentence of the accused appellant, we find that Blunder Singh at the time of recovery was aged about 30 years. No

previous conviction has been shown against him nor any other circumstances have been shown that he is involved in other case also. Keeping in

view the above facts of the case, accused-appellant Blunder Singh is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years instead of rigorous

imprisonment for twelve years. However, there is no change in the sentence of fine. With the above-said modification in the sentence, CRA No.

D-112-DB of 2007 filed by Bhinder Singh, is dismissed. As Bhinder Singh is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender

himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him

in accordance with law.

As discussed, accused-appellant Sukhwinder Singh has died in custody on 21.01.2011, therefore, CRA No. D-103-DB of 2007 filed by him, is

abated.