Cr. Appeal No. 499 of 2016. Case: Umed Singh Vs State of H.P.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCr. Appeal No. 499 of 2016
Party NameUmed Singh Vs State of H.P.
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. AG., with Mr.Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG.
JudgesMr. Sanjay Karol and Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, JJ
IssueNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20
Judgement DateApril 18, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sanjay Karol, J.

  1. In relation to FIR No.96/2015, dated 17.04.2015, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., accused stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of ` 1 lac and in default thereof further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

  2. Trial Court found the prosecution to have established its case of having recovered 1 kg 460 grams of charas from the conscious possession of the accused. It was on 17.04.2015, that the police party recovered it from a place known as Bhurji (Malana road), Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

  3. Through the testimonies of C. Nitish Kumar (PW.1), Ashok Kumar (PW.2) and HC Deepak Kumar (PW.12), prosecution establishes recovery of the contraband substance. Through the testimonies of Nitish Kumar and SI Jitender Kumar (PW.8), prosecution wants to establish that Rukka (PW.1/D) was carried to the Police Station and same day FIR (Ex.PW.8/A) was registered. Through the testimonies of SI Jitender Kumar and HC Gajender Pal (PW.3), prosecution wants to establish that the case property so recovered was resealed at the Police Station and deposited in the Malkhana. Further C. Sunil Mahant (PW.6), carried the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, where it was examined and report (Ex.PX) brought back. Through the testimonies of C. Ajay Sharma (PW.11) and HC Deepak Kumar, prosecution wants to establish that information about the incident came to be passed on to the superior officer.

  4. Significantly, in the instant case, prosecution did associate an independent person as a witness while carrying out search and seizure operations. In this regard, the said person, namely, Ashok Kumar (PW.2) has fully supported the prosecution.

  5. Trial Court has succinctly dealt with the issue of minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, they being trivial in nature. Before this Court, much emphasis is laid on the fact that Ashok Kumar stands introduced by the police, only to falsely implicate the accused. Also no endeavour was made by the police to associate any respectable person of the locality, while carrying out search and seizure operations.

  6. At this juncture, one may only observe the defence and the alibi taken by...

To continue reading

Request your trial