P.C. the driver of the vehicle who fled was described to be stoutly built with height of 55 and aged about 30 35 years and was referred to as Khekh Ram.
PW 11, Sohan Lal was an employee of the brother of PW 13, Smt.
As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, numbernexus companyld be established between the bullets recovered from the dead body and the firearms allegedly recovered.
The said companystable however returned after 15 20 minutes to disclose that neither any independent witness was available at that hour number any passerby was numbericeable.
Govind Singh was later on arrested on 06.03.2010 and on companypletion of the investigation following the receipt of the report of the chemical analysis, proceedings under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act was instituted against the appellant and Govind Singh.
It was also mentioned by the Trial Court that if the seizure memo, Ext.
The admission of the investigating officer, PW 8 that he did number record in the ruqqa the fact that the driver of the vehicle carrying the companytraband was facing him and that he accordingly companyld recognize him was numbered.
In companyrse of his statement under Section 313 Cr.
2 lakhs, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
PW8/B 1 to Ext.
PW8/A and the special report Ext.
He deposed to have summoned Ses Ram and Govind Singh to the police station and after the disclosures made by them about the sale of the vehicle and the temporary entrustment by Govind Singh of the vehicle to Khekh Ram, he arrested the appellant on 21.10.2009 at 4 p.m. He stated that after the arrest of the appellant, he prepared a special report, Ext.
No defence evidence was however adduced.
PW1/A in fact had been prepared by the investigating officer at the spot, the same ought to have companytained the above facts bearing on the identification of the appellant and that absence thereof and the omission to refer the name of the appellant in the ruqqa Ext.
The appellant was arrested.
PW8/A and handed over the same to HHC Hira Singh, PW 1 to take it to the police station, Kullu for registration of the FIR.
The search team also retrieved the registration certificate of the vehicle which was in the name of Ses Ram son of Shri Devi Singh as well as a bank passbook of Himachal Gramin Bank issued in the name of Khekh Ram son of Chuhru Ram, R o village Gramang, PO Shallang showing a deposit of Rs.1,79,029/ as on 03.10.2009.
P.C., the appellant and the companyaccused stood by the denial of the charge and alleged false implication.
The companytraband on being weighed was found to be of 14.750 kgs.
In companyrse of their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.
PW3/A did bely as well the claim of his identification by the police party.
The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses including the investigating officer.
P.C. the appellant denied recovery of charas from him.
In companyrse of the investigation on 20.10.2009, the owner of the vehicle Ses Ram was summoned who disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to one Govind Singh on 03.08.2009.
218 of 2011 thereby reversing the verdict dated 29.12.2010 of acquittal of the appellant by the Trial Court from the charge under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for Signature Not Verified short, hereafter referred to as the Act .
He also examined two witnesses Narain Singh and Govind Singh in defence.
He stated to have companypleted the proceedings at the spot with the help of search lights and the headlights of the vehicles whereafter he directed ASI Ratan Lal to locate Ses Ram and to arrest Khekh Ram.
With the evidence forthcoming that the registered owner of the vehicle was Ses Ram PW 2 who deposed to have sold it to Govind Singh but the registration thereof had number been transferred and further that the vehicle had been temporarily lent to the appellant for his personal work, does number irrefutably rule out the possibility of use thereof by anyone of them at the relevant time.
PW 8/B 1 to Ex.
After the companypletion of seizure, ruqqa was sent to the police station through HHC Hira Singh for the registration thereof.
He claimed that photographs were also taken by him of the seized companymodity in the form of Ext.
The accused persons having denied the charge, they were put to trial.
PW8/B 10 with his digital camera.
The evidence of PW 11 and PW 12 was full of significant discrepancies with regard to the identity of the accused and the roles attributed to them in the perpetration of the crime.
PW1/A. He stated to have prepared the ruqqa Ext.
The Trial Court thus discarded the evidence of these two witnesses to companynect the appellant with the offence.
He further claimed to be innocent and alleged that he had been falsely implicated.
By the impugned Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2017.11.10 150650 IST Reason decision, the appellant thus stand companyvicted under the above provisions of the Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
They instead roamed about aimlessly in the streets of Karnal until they came to the place of occurrence when their statements were recorded by the police.
The bag companytaining the companytraband was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal of impression T. In the report under Section 173 Cr.
We have heard Mr. Ajay Marwah, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned companynsel for the respondent State.
The investigating officer deposed that the companyaccused Govind Singh had disclosed on interrogation, that Khekh Ram had taken his vehicle for bringing his wife from Anni.
PW 8 though was silent with regard to the identification of the fleeing driver, in cross examination he mentioned that at the point of time when the two vehicles were face to face, the driver of the Alto car was facing towards the police vehicle and he companyld recognize him.
Noticeably, in essence, whereas it was canvassed on behalf of the prosecution that the materials on record amply establish the charge against the accused persons, it was urged on behalf of the defence that there was numberevidence worth the name either to identify the appellant Khekh Ram to be the driver of the offending vehicle who fled on seeing the police patrol party or that either or both the accused persons were in companyscious possession of the companytraband claim to be seized therefrom.
On the aspect of identification, it dealt in particular with the testimony of HHC Hira Singh, PW 1 who though in his examination in chief stated that he companyld recognize the person fleeing from the vehicle, in the search light as Khekh Ram, he admitted in his cross examination that prior to the incident, the appellant was number personally known to him and that he had seen him on that occasion from a distance of 40 to 50 yards.
PW 8, Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan, the Investigating Officer, on oath reiterated his version in the FIR and stated in particular that after packing the bag companytaining the companytraband with a cloth, he sealed the same with nine seals of T and thereafter filled the NCB forms, amongst others Ext.
PW8/A. The Trial Court viewed with disapproval as well, the photographs Ex.
Further they did neither have any search light number the lights of the vehicle had been switched on.
Though PW 11 and PW 12 claimed that they knew the deceased from before and that the house of the deceased was very near to the place of occurrence, they did neither visit the house of the deceased number inform the family members of the deceased number did they report the incident to the police.
PW8/A, the name of the appellant got mentioned therein on the basis of his passbook recovered from the vehicle.
The impugned judgment being one of reversal altering the order of acquittal into companyviction on the basis of companymon set of evidence, expedient it would be to briefly numbere the findings of the two forums before adverting to the rival assertions made in this appeal.
It also recorded that the investigating officer, PW 8 had number stated in his deposition that the absconding person was Khekh Ram and that he had been identified to be so by PW 1, HHC Hira Singh and another member of the raiding party, namely, HHC Kashmi Ram.
The evidence of PW 4 and PW 6 was referred to for reinforcing the above assertion.
The FIR was registered and on the companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant and others under Sections 120 B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
To the companytrary, the companyclusion of the High Court on this issue seems to be dominantly guided by the recovery of the bank passbook in the name of the appellant from the vehicle and the reference of his name in the ruqqa Ext.
It also observed in this regard that in the special report Ext.
The Trial Court on an analysis of the evidence on record acquitted both the accused persons.
PW4/E. He drew up also the seizure memo of the car, the keys, the registration certificate, the passbook and the charas vide Ext.
This Court, analyzing the testimony of PW 4, Umesh Kumar recorded that this witness had stated that as the place of the occurrence was isolated having numberhabitation nearby, he was associated in the investigation by PW 6, Gurbachan companyplainant whereafter the person as well as the bag of the appellant was searched after making him aware of his right to have the said exercise undertaken before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The Trial Court recorded as well that numbertest identification parade had been companyducted qua the appellant and also marked the absence of any claim by PW 1, HHC Hira Singh that on the arrest of the appellant on 21.10.2009, he had identified him as the person who had fled from the spot.
At this, the investigating officer associated HHC Kashmi Ram and HHC Hira Singh as witnesses and initiated a search of the vehicle in their presence.
PW 8/B 8 claimed to have been taken by the investigating officer with his digital camera, of the car and the seized article, as some of those did number bear any date and the rest were of 05.01.2008 at 7.06 a.m., different from the date of seizure of the companytraband i.e. 20.10.2009.
The companytraband on being weighed was found to be of 7 kgs.
It discarded as well the NCB Form, Ext.
The investigation amongst others led to the recovery of firearms on the disclosure of the appellant and companyaccused Ballu.
Prosecution examined six witnesses.
In the face of these anomalies, the Trial Court also companycluded that the recovery memo Ext.
On appeal being filed by the State, as stated hereinabove, the High Court reversed the acquittal qua the appellant only while maintaining the exoneration of the companyaccused Govind Singh.
This Court numbered that the Trial Court in acquitting the appellant had laid emphasis on two aspects, namely, numberindependent witness was examined and fatal companytradictions in the testimonies of PW 4 and PW 6.
It was of the view that as evident from the ruqqa Ext.
Vis vis the companyaccused Govind Singh, the Trial Court numbericed that there was numberincriminating material to prove his involvement in the companymission of the offence.
The testimony of PW 1 and PW 8 taken together by itself is number adequately persuasive to unimpeachably establish the identity of the driver of the Alto vehicle to be Khekh Ram, the appellant.
This witness disclosed further that the party was at the spot for about 1 hour 40 minutes and it was dark at the relevant point of time.
PW 11 and PW 12 had identified the accused including the appellant for the first time in Court.
In the estimate of the Trial Court, these photographs thus companyld number be related to the seizure claimed.
Govind Singh was intercepted on 20.10.2009 who in turn disclosed that on 19.10.2009 the vehicle was taken by Khekh Ram for some personal work.
According to the Trial Court, there was also numberendorsement with regard to registration of the FIR on the ruqqa Ext.
PW1/A had number been prepared at the spot as claimed by the investigating officer.
The Trial Court in assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution was companynizant of the legal proposition that graver the offence and severer the punishment, greater ought to be the care taken to ensure that all statutory safeguards have been scrupulously adhered to and that a heightened scrutiny of such companypliance thereof is warranted.
PW4/E in which the name of the appellant was mentioned , on the ground that as this document was supposed to be prepared prior in point of time to ruqqa, it was inexplicable as to why then the name of the appellant was number mentioned in the ruqqa which was sent to the police for registration of the case.
The recovery of weapons at the instance of the appellant and the companyaccused Ballu was highly doubtful.
was detected which was seized, parceled and sealed whereafter NCB form was filled up, sample seal was taken in a separate piece of cloth and the seized companytraband was taken in possession and the related memo was signed by him as well as Head Constable, Tain Singh.
PW3/A, the facts mentioned in the recovery memo Ext.
As the place was secluded, the investigating officer, PW 8 directed HHC Hira Singh, a member of the team to scout for independent witnesses to participate in the imminent search operations.
Ruqqa was prepared and was sent to the police station and after obtaining the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the appellant was sent up for trial.
The skeletal facts portraying the prosecution case originate from the wee hours of 20.10.2009, precisely 4 a.m when the police patrol party led by Inspector SHO Sanjeev Chauhan PW 8 , while located at a place known as Kelti Dhar numbericed an Alto vehicle bearing registration No.
HP 01K 0805 moving towards them from Shallang onward to Kullu.
In the appeal, filed by the State, the High Court companyvicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
PW1/A were number referred to and held that either the identification of the appellant was number available to the investigating agency or was subsequently introduced by the investigating officer in order to companynect him with the companymission of the offence.
Consequently, it acquitted the appellant and the companyaccused of the charge.
AMITAVA ROY, J. The instant appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment and orders dated 19.09.2016 and 22.09.2016 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla rendered in Criminal Appeal No.
This witness however did number claim to have identified the driver to be the appellant, Khekh Ram at that point of time.
This witness affirmed that on searching the bag of the appellant, charas weighing 7 kg.
PW 3/A. In his examination in chief though this witness had reiterated his narration in the FIR that the driver of the Alto car on being stopped, jumped therefrom and fled, he did number claim to have identified him to be the appellant.
Pushpa Devi, who was the wife of the deceased.
Subsequent thereto, the appellant, Khekh Ram was arrested on 21.10.2009 while he was driving another vehicle.
