Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.01.22 144325 IST Reason In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts as emerged from the prosecution case need to be numbered at the outset.
PW 11/A .
One more important discrepancy in the prosecution case that gives rise to suspicion of truthfulness of police officers is that, as deposed by Anjani Kumar PW 12 the entire seized case property together with six sample parcels was deposited by him with Gandhi Ram PW 6 .
They clearly stated that they were number present at the spot when the incident took place and denied the detaining of accusedrespondents in their presence and alleged recovery of companytraband from the accused.
On the other hand, the material on record proves the same wrong as at the relevant time, PW12 was present at Sadar Police Station, Mandi and sent special report to Superintendent of Police Ext.
Police overpowered the accused and seized the companytraband from their possession, prepared samples, sealed and marked them and registered the case.
Besides the above numbered inadequacies, there are also certain other companytradictory statements by the prosecution witnesses relating to other aspects of the case, per se, according to Rakesh Kumar PW8 , he carried the report Ex.
He has also deposed that the police officials told him that the bags companytained companytraband material charas and the same was recovered from the abandoned house.
Accordingly he carried two gunny bags while one bag was carried by the police officials and loaded them in the vehicle.
Amar Chand PW 1 and Kuldeep Kumar PW 2 who were going on that route at that time, also joined them as witnesses.
Whereas another witness Constable Rakesh Kumar PW 8 deposed that Gian Chand PW 9 left the spot to bring scale and weights at 1 a.m. According to Anjani Kumar PW 12 , he called Rajinder Kumar PW11 on his cell phone and asked to join him at Kullu whereas the record shows that Rajinder Kumar PW 11 joined PW 12 at Panarsa and he has clearly denied to have received any call from PW 12.
Contrary to this, PW 5 Hem Raj stated that the scale and weights were borrowed from him by the police officials in the morning 9 or 10 am on 11th July, 2004.
It is the case of the accusedrespondents that while they were taking tea at a Dhaba, police arrived there and taken them to police station and falsely implicated them in the case.
They asked him to load three gunny bags lying outside an abandoned house, into the vehicle.
The said PW5 was also declared hostile.
After investigation, charges were framed against the accused and upon their denial, the case was companymitted for trial.
At around 11.30 p.m. in the night, the accusedrespondents herein arrived at that place carrying with them three gunny bags of companytraband Charas and upon seeing police, they tried to run away.
Having given our thoughtful companysideration to the rival submissions and after going through the material available on record, we numberice the following discrepancies in the prosecution case, which in our companysidered opinion, bear greater importance in dealing with the case on hand The evidence of Tulsi Ram DW 2 makes it clear that on the day of incident i.e. 10 7 2004, when he was going to his house through Panarsa Bridge at about 4/5 p.m., police officials met him on the way near Panarsa Bridge.
Aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused filed appeals before the High Court and the High Court after analyzing the evidence allowed their appeals and set aside the companyviction.
PW 1 Amar Chand and PW 2 Kuldip Kumar who were said to be the independent witnesses, did number support the case of prosecution.
Dissatisfied with the acquittal order passed by the High Court, the State is in appeal before us.
Not only this, according to Anjani Kumar PW 12 , Gian Chand PW 9 left the spot to get scale and weights at 11.30 p.m. returned to the spot at 8.15 p.m., ante time.
This fact companyroborates with the deposition of Bihari Lal DW 3 , a tea vendor, who stated that police officials came to his shop and took away the accused on 11 7 2004.
PH to police station in a truck, whereas PW 9 Gaian Chand states that PW8 travelled by a scooter and the prime witness Anjani Kumar PW12 says that PW8 went to police station and returned to the spot by foot.
Whereas Dabe Ram, SHO PW4 says that Anjani Kumar PW12 produced three bags and three sample parcels before him at 8.30 pm.
The Trial Court companyvicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two years.
By the said order, the High Court set aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused Signature Not Verified respondents herein.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals are filed by the State having aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, allowing the Criminal Appeals filed by the accusedrespondents herein against their companyviction passed by the trial Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for short the N.D.P.S. Act .
On 10th July, 2004, Anjani Kumar, Inspector, CID, Shimla PW12 , upon receiving a secret information that some people are pursuing the unlawful business of charas, proceeded towards Panarsa Bridge along with ASI Gian Chand PW 9 and Constable Rakesh Kumar PW 8 and some other police personnel.
