Dismissed¶29

State of Chhattisgarh v. Maniram Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2024ACQA/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; ACQA No. 12 of 2023; acquittal appeal by State against acquittal under NDPS Act 1985 Sections 8(C) and 20(B)(ii)(B); accused Maniram Sahu; 15 kg ganja seizure in eight packets; motorcycle CG 10 W 3631; Section 50 NDPS notice and consent; Panchnama; Malkhana slip; weigher Gaya Ram; contradictory statements of Investigator and witnesses; sample packets of 100 grams; FSL report; benefit of doubt; acquittal not lightly interfered with; grave miscarriage of justice; perverse evidence; appeal dismissed; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; order dated 09/08/2024; Special Judge (NDPS Act) Bemetara; Special Case (NDPS) No. 02/2016.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant/State; the trial Court's acquittal of the Respondent stands undisturbed. ¶29

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Maniram Sahu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant/State; the trial Court's acquittal of the Respondent stands undisturbed.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the Respondent under section 8(C) read with Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by the trial Court was erroneous and warranted interference by this Court in appeal. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

An order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or the consideration of evidence was perverse; even if two conclusions are possible on the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be taken, and it is improper for the appellate Court to interfere merely because it may hold a different opinion.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the records, the statements of the Investigator, the Malkhana slip and the weigher Gaya Ram are seriously contradictory (eight versus nine packets; two versus one sample packets of 100 grams; independent witnesses Dilip Vema and Jagrat Das speaking of 04-05 and 07-08 packets respectively), and the witnesses did not prove that a big packet was prepared and sealed on the spot; the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

¶24

Key takeaways

In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances warranting interference with the acquittal exists; the finding arrived at by the trial Court is purely in accordance with law and the trial Court committed no error of law in acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.ratio¶28
The Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed as totally devoid of merits.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 12 of 2023) by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the judgment dated 05.12.2018 of the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bemetara, whereby the accused was acquitted under section 8(C) read with Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 on benefit of doubt after recovery of 15 Kgs of ganja in eight packets (Section 50 notice served, consent obtained, Panchnama prepared, samples sent to FSL). Reviewing the record, the appellate Court noted serious contradictions between the Investigator, the Malkhana slip and the weigher Gaya Ram (eight versus nine packets; two versus one sample packets of 100 grams; independent witnesses uncertain between 04-05 and 07-08 packets) and that sealing of a big packet on the spot was not proved. Reaffirming that an order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with absent grave miscarriage of justice or perverse consideration of evidence, and that where two conclusions are possible the one favourable to the accused prevails, the Court found no circumstance warranting interference, held the trial Court's finding to be in accordance with law, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits.

2024:CGHC:30105

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 12 of 2023

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Maniram Sahu S/o Badri Prasad Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Marhikanpa, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.H. Rizvi, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board

¶12

09/08/2024

¶13

The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), in Special Case (NDPS) No. 02/2016, whereby the Respondent has been acquitted punishable under section 8 (C) read with Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶14

Case of the prosecution in brief is that an information was received from the informant to the Station House OfÏce of Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara on 24.01.2016 that, the present

¶15

¶16

respondent/ accused bearing motorcycle No. CG 10 W 3631 is carrying /transporting illegal cannabis, thereafter immediately action has been taken and the information has been sent to the SDO Police Bemetara in this regard and the Police Team went to village Pathariya Putpura Main Road Simga. The informant had also given the identification of the accused respondent to the concerned ASI. Thereafter, the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was duly served upon the accused respondent and his consent was obtained. Thereafter, the search was conducted and the Panchnama was prepared and during search of the bag being carried by the accused respondent, 15 Kgs, ganjain 8 different packets were recovered from the possession of the accused respondent, thereafter, identification Panchnama was also prepared and the said was weighted. After seizing of the said cannabis, the same was sent for safe custody to Maalkhana and the same was further sent to the FSL. After receiving the FSL report, the offence under Section 8 (c ) read with Section 20 (B)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been registered and the challan has been filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Court. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged.

¶17

Mr. Ajit Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/State would submit that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidences in its proper perspective and has succumbed in the surmises of conjectures. He further submits that

¶18

¶19

the trial Court has failed to consider the factum of seizure of illegal ganjafrom the possession of the respondent/accused from the bag which was carrying in the vehicle in question weighing 125 kg. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the witnesses, wherein, they have stated about the prosecution case and seizure of ganjafrom the accused, however, despite these evidences the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. It is also pertinent to mention here that, on account of illegal transportation of ganjaand failure of accused persons to adduce evidence or explanation regarding transporting of ganja, the offence was registered and then the investigation has been conducted and after completion of investigation the prosecution had filed charge sheet along with sufÏcient material evidences, however, the learned Special Court failed to appreciate and consider the case of the prosecution. He lastly contended that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, therefore the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court after appreciating all the material available on record, has acquitted the respondent and the order of the trial court is just and proper warranting no interference.

¶21

I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶22

From perusal of the records, it is clear from the facts that the statements of Investigator, Malkhana slip and weigher Gaya Ram

¶23

¶24

are seriously contradictory. The Investigator said that ganja was seized in eight packets, whereas according to weigher, there were a total of 09 packets, out of which seven contained two kg each and two contained half a KG ganja each. Only eight packets were deposited. Nothing has been mentioned in the Malkhana Slip that any sample packet has been submitted. The examiner has stated to prepare two sample packets of 100 grams each, whereas the Gayaram has stated to prepare only one packet. Both the independent witnesses of the above proceedings, Dilip Vema and Jagrat Das, have stated the possibility of having 04-05 packets and 7-8 packets respectively. Moreover, the witnesses have not proved that a big packed was prepared and it was sealed on the spot. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime alleged against them. There is no uniformity in the statements of the witnesses whose statements have been made in the case, in such a situation the case of the prosecution appears doubtful and it is well known principle that the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and should be given to. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, accused/respondent was acquitted of the alleged crime for the aforesaid offence.

¶25

The order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or consideration of the evidence was perverse. Even if two conclusions are possible on basis of the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused has

¶26

¶27

to be taken and it will not be proper for the appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal merely because it may be of a difference opinion. Failure to consider admissible evidence or admitting inadmissible evidence are some of the other grounds on which the order of acquittal may be interfered with. In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances exist presently warranting interference.

¶28

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the fnding arrived at by the i trial Court is purely in accordance with law and the trial Court has not committed any error of law in reaching to the said conclusion of acquitting the Respondent of the charge leveled against him under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act .

¶29

The Appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed being totally devoid of merits.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶32

Jyoti

¶33

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2024.08.24 11:15:57 +0530

State of Chhattisgarh v. Maniram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Maniram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dewangan Sunglass Vs Nirdesh Diwan

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Balwant Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Surendra Choubey

Dr. G.d. Meghani Vs Appropriate Authority Pndt Act

Prabhat Chand Jain Vs Nandkishore Khandelwal

Yuvraj Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh