Appeal against conviction for possessing ganja under NDPS Act. HC rejected appeal holding trial court correctly convicted appellant despite hostile independent witnesses, as police testimony was reliable and corroborated by documentary evidence and lab report.
Appeal dismissed; no order for arrest or surrender as appellant has served sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 245 of 2002
----Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent/State Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Judgment on Board
05.09.2019
2
along with witnesses went to the spot, apprehended the accused, gave him notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P-2 and made him aware of his legal right, on which he consented to be searched by the police. Personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the appellant and nothing was found. On search of the bicycle which the appellant was carrying Ganja like substance was recovered and on being examined, it was found to be Ganja vide Exs. P-4 & P-5. On weighment being done of the contraband it was found to be 2.450 Kg Ganja. Two samples, each of 50 gms, were drawn from the said contraband and seizure memo was prepared, the samples were duly sealed and specimen of seal was affixed on the seizure memo Ex.P-8. Accused was arrested vide Ex.P-9. Intimation of the entire proceedings was forwarded to Superior Authority. After reaching police station, FIR (Ex.P-19) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The remaining contraband was deposited in Malkhana, samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-20, which confirms the seized contraband to be Ganja vide Ex. P-21. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The trial Court framed charge under Section 20(B)(i) of the NDPS Act against him. Accused denied the charge framed against him and prayed for trial.
3
Jaidev Boi. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in his defence.
4
spot where they found the accused/appellant. On being enquired he disclosed his name as Mohan son of Mehtar. He was given notice under Section 50 of the Act and made aware of his legal rights. On the consent of the appellant, his search was made by him. Prior to his search, personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the appellant, on which nothing was found from their possession. However, on search of his bicycle carried by the appellant Ganja like substance was recovered, which on being examined by smelling and rubbing was found to be Ganja. After weightment, the contraband was found to be 2.450 Kg. Thereafter, two samples, each of 50 gms, were drawn from the said contraband, seizure memo was prepared, the samples were duly sealed and specimen of seal was affixed on the seizure memo, intimation of the entire proceedings were forwarded to the Superior Authority, SDOP, Kondagaon, contraband including the samples were deposited in Malkhana, samples were sent to FSL (Ex.P20) for chemical examination with intact seal and as per report of FSL it was confirmed to be Ganja (Ex.P21). The property seized from the accused was kept in safe custody as per Ex.P-23 it is also proved by the PW-5 A. Nuruty. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-5 A. Nuruty, his statement is uncontroverted. As per PW-6 Jaidev, the seized articles were divided into packets and remaining part of articles were kept in safe custody as per Ex.P-23. Looking to the statement of PW-1 Soma, he was declared hostile but he admitted his signatures on all the documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. Definitely in this case both
5
independent witnesses PW-1 Soma and PW-2 Jageshwar were declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case, but they have admitted their signatures on Ex.P-1 to P-10. PW-3 Sukhranjan also proved this fact that he weighed the samples and were prepared by the Police Officer. PW-4 R.K. Jha also supported the statements of Soma Kumar and Jageshwar as per Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12. It cannot be stated as a rule of law that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eyewitness in a criminal case which will always depend upon facts of a given case. If testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. Only when his interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be attached to his statement. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without there being good grounds therefor.
6
of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence. [ AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3344 between Pramod Kumar v. State (GNCT) of Delhi .]
Sd/Gautam Chourdiya Judge
Akhilesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 20(B)(i) of the NDPS Act can stand despite the police witnesses being declared hostile.
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in relying solely on police officers for conviction in the absence of independent witness support.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pramod Kumar v. State (GNCT) of DelhiReferred¶29
AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3344 between Pramod Kumar v. State (GNCT) of Delhi · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohan S/o Mahetar
State of C.G.
Gautam Chourdiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
