Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 August, 2019
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.267 of 2017 Reserved on: 08.08.2019 Decided on: August 28, 2019.
.
Sh. Sandeep Kumar ..........Appellant.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ........Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent :
Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional
Advocate General.
__________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Sandeep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" in short), against the judgment dated 31.03.2017, passed by learned Special Judge(II), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Kinnaur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.21-R/3 of 2010/2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sandeep Kumar, whereby accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" in short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 2
alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict has to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
.
2. Prosecution Case:
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:-
2(i). On 24.02.2010, a police party, headed by Inspector/SHO Vidya Chand, Investigating Officer, consisting of other police officials, namely, ASI Kanwar Singh, Constable Mohar Singh, HHG Vijay Kumar and HHG Daya Ram, was on patrolling and Nakabandi duty.
2(ii). At about 07.00 p.m., when police party was present at Dev-Dhank-Kedas link road at Pipaldhar, they noticed accused coming from Kedas side, carrying a bag on his right shoulder. On seeing the police party, he got scared and tried to flee from the place. He was chased and overpowered by police personnels. Accused disclosed his name as Sandeep Kumar alias Sonu, resident of State of Haryana. Police party became suspicious of accused possessing some contraband.
The place was isolated, secluded and there were no inhabitants in the area. At that time, there was not even movement of any vehicle on the road. In such a situation, the police party was unable to associate any independent witness to the proceedings. Hence, PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, Investigating ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 3 Officer, associated PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh and PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh as witnesses to the proceedings.
2(iii). Accused was informed of his legal rights .
regrading search. His consent was obtained vide consent memo Ext.PW-5/A. The accused opted to give his search before the police party. Thereafter, PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, Investigating Officer, alongwith PW-8 ASI and PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, gave their personal search to the accused vide memos Ext.PW-5/B and Ext.PW-5/C, respectively. Search of bag of accused was conducted and contraband was recovered from bag of accused, which based on experience of police party, was charas. On weighing, it was found to be 2 Kg.
2(iv). Recovered charas from the conscious possession of accused was put in a cloth parcel (Ext.P-1) and was sealed with 9 seal impressions of seal 'A'. The bag in which charas was kept by the accused, was separately put into a parcel (Ext.P-2), which was also sealed with 9 same seal impression of seal 'A'. NCB-I Form (Ext.PW-7/A), in triplicate, was filled and separate specimen of seal impression 'A' Ext.PW-
5/D was taken on a piece of cloth and seal was handed over to PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW-5/E, in presence of PW-8 Kanwar Singh and PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, which was ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 4 signed by the witnesses and the accused. Copy of seizure memo Ext.PW-5/E was also supplied to the accused. Site plan Ext.PW-7/B, was prepared by the Investigating Officer.
.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rukka Ext.PW-2/A was prepared by by PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, Investigating Officer and sent to Police Station, Nirmand, through PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, on the basis of which, F.I.R. Ext.PW-2/B was registered against the accused.
The accused was arrested vide memo Ext.PW-7/C. 2(v). After completion of proceedings at the spot, PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, Investigating Officer, deposited the case property in Malkhana with PW-1 MHC Lal Chand, who made the entry in Malkhana Register. The abstract of Malkhana Register is Ext.PW-1/A. The Investigating Officer (PW-7), on 26.02.2010, sent the Special Report Ext.PW-3/B to S.D.P.O., Anni, through PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh.
2(vi). On 27.02.2010, the case property, was sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through PW-6 HHC Diwan Chand, for chemical analysis, who deposited the same at S.F.S.L., Junga, on the same day vide RC Ext.PW-1/B(D). Result of chemical analysis was obtained from S.F.S.L., Junga, vide Ext.PW-7/D. ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 5 2(vi). On completion of all codal formalities, the Challan was prepared and presented before learned trial Court. Accused was charged for commission of offence punishable under .
Section 20 the Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2(vi). For establishing its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused also examined one witness, besides himself stepping into witnesses-box.
2(vii). On conclusion of the trial, the accused was held guilty and convicted by learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
3. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, instant appeal has been preferred.
3(i). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire case record.
Learned defence counsel has argued on following aspects:-
(i). Independent witnesses were not
associated;
(ii). Contradictions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses; &
(iii) Regarding seal impression.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP
6
3(ii). Independent Witnesses.
3(ii)(a). Three material witnesses, in this regard,
examined by the prosecution, are PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, .
Investigating Officer, PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh and PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh.
3(ii)(b). All these three witnesses have consistently deposed that place of Nakka was Pipaldhar on Dev-Dhank-
Kedas link road. The place from where accused was apprehended, was isolated. There were no habitation nearby the place of Nakka. Neither any traffic was moving nor any witnesses were available at the relevant date, time and place.
It was under these circumstances that Investigating Officer PW-
7 Inspector Vidya Chand, associated PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh and PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, as witnesses to the proceedings. There is no evidence to the contrary led by the accused.
3(ii)(c). It is settled law that prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on account of independent witnesses having not been associated. Each case is required to be decided on its own facts. Present is not a case where non-availability of independent witnesses will affect prosecution case. In the instant case, chance recovery of contraband/charas, weighing 2.00 Kg., from the conscious possession of accused, stands ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 7 proved on record. In this regard, it is apt to rely upon 2018, LHLJ 657, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Tharban Lal, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
.
"8. There is no dispute with regard to case law cited by learned Additional Advocate General in pronouncement of the Apex Court in cases titled State of Haryana versus Mai Ram, son of Mam Chand, reported in (2008) 8 to Supreme Court Cases 292; State of Punjab versus Nirmal Singh, reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 205; State of Punjab versus Leela, reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court cases 300; State of Punjab versus Surjit Singh and another, reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 472; and Kulwinder Singh and another versus State of Punjab, reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 674, wherein it has been held that in absence of any infirmity in the evidence of official witnesses, conviction can be based on the testimony of official witnesses only and there is no legal bar to convict an accused in absence of independent witnesses only on the basis of statements of official witnesses unless there is material to discredit their statements or some infirmity is pointed out in their evidence as trustworthy, credible and unimpeachable evidence of official witnesses beyond reproach is sufficient to convict an accused for the reason that it is the quality, not the quantity, which matter."
PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, Investigating Officer, as well as PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh and PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, have consistently maintained in their depositions that the place of Nakka was isolated, secluded and there were no inhabitants in nearby area to associate them as independent witnesses and further that there was no movement of vehicles on the road at the relevant date, time and place. It is not the case of defence that police party had any enmity towards the accused. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on account of ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 8 inability of police party to associate independent witnesses.
Point is answered accordingly.
3(iii). Contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
.
3(iii)(a). Learned counsel for the appellant-accused pointed out, firstly, contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses to contend that neither the laying of Nakka at place Dev-Dhank-Kedas link road at Pipaldhar, nor, the arrest of the accused from this place was proved on record:-
PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, in his cross-
examination, stated that:-
"we were present at a distance of 8 to 10 paces from the main Rampur-Nirmand road towards Kedus side. At that time no rain-shelter was existing at Kedus bifurcation. There is a rain shelter on Nirmand-Rampur road which is situated at a distance of about 150 to 200 mtrs away from the Kedus bifurcation towards Niamand."
"We were standing on the hill side at the time of this occurrence. The vehicle was also parked on that side."
PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, in his cross-
examination, stated as follows:-
"Pipaldhar is situated at a distance of 600 to 700 meters towards Kedus from Dev Dhank bifurcation. We were standing on the left side of ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 9 the road going from Dev Dhank to Kidus. The vehicle was parked on the right side of the road. The vehicle was parked behind mark 'X' towards Dev Dhank. The vehicle was facing Dev Dhank.
.
The road was visible upto 10 to 15 paces and thereafter there was a curve. It is correct that in site plan Ex.PW-7/B, the official vehicle which was parked on the spot, has not been depicted."
"Dev Dhank was not visible from the place of occurrence."
PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, in his cross-
examination, stated as follows:-
"We were present at a distance of about 1 km. from the place from where road to Kedus bifurcation from Rampur-Nirmand road."
"The official vehicle was parked on the spot towards hill side. We were present at the place where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked facing Kedus side."
"A rain-shelter is existing on the main road near Kidus bifurcation".
3(iii)(b). Learned defence counsel argued that above statements of prosecution witnesses are contradictory and are even contrary to spot map Ext.PW-7/B. 3(iii)(c). We have carefully perused the statements of material prosecution witnesses PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand & PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh and have also seen the spot map Ext.PW-7/B. The pointed ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 10 contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are not contradictions. PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, in his cross-
examination, stated that there was no rain shelter at Kedus .
bifurcation and that rain shelter was on Nirmand-Rampur road at a distance of about 150 to 200 metres away from Kedus bifurcation towards Nirmand. Similarly, PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, also stated that rain shelter was there, but, the same was on the main road near Kedus bifurcation. Thus, there is no contradiction or even discrepancy in the statements of prosecution witness, in this regard.
3(iii)(d). Learned counsel for the appellant-
accused, further pointed out following contradictions from the statements of prosecution witnesses:-
i) As per him, PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh stated I.O. kit in the shape of an attachee whereas, as per PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, I.O. kit was in the shape of bag. PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh stated that search of I.O. kit was not given to the accused, whereas, as per PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, search of I.O. kit was given to the accused;::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 11
ii) According to PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, the proceedings were conducted inside the official vehicle, whereas, as per PW-8 .
ASI Kanwar Singh, the proceedings were conducted on the road side;
iii) PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, stated that NCB Form was updated before preparation of seizure memo, whereas, PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, stated that seizure memo was prepared at around 08.30 p.m. PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh stated that seizure memo was prepared first and thereafter NCB Form was updated; &
iv) As per PW-5 Constable Mohar Singh, the information about arrest of the accused was not given on telephone from the Police Station in his (PW-5) presence, whereas, as per PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, the information about arrest of the accused was given to his brother from the Police Station. As per PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh, the brother of the accused ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 12 was informed about his arrest from his own cell phone.
In our considered view, the above
.
contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are not even minor contradictions, but, are trivial discrepancies, which are bound to occur due to lapse of time and memory.
These discrepancies are minor in nature and do not affect prosecution case. No prejudice has been caused to appellant-
accused from the above discrepancies. It is apt to refer (2000) 1 SCC 247, titled Lekh Raj and another, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidence there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, [1974] 3 SCC 767, held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1981] SCC (Crl.) 676, this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 13 prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan v, Kalki & Anr., [1981] 2 SCC 752 held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to .
normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."
In (2001) 8 SCC 86, titled Sukhdev Yadav and other versus State of Bihar, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"1. It is now well-settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. This Court in Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another [(1999) 9 SCC 525] relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985 (1) SCC 505) observed:
There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
3. It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment sometimes there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same and sometimes the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better from the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 14 witness box details out an exaggerated account. In Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1988 Suppl. SCC
241), this Court in paragraph 13 of the Report observed:
The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The .
discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such facts, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy."
Reference can also be made in this regard to 2015(3) SCC 138, titled Vinod Kumar versus State of Haryana.
In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, minor discrepancy or variance in prosecution witnesses will not make the prosecution's case doubtful, in any manner.
Present is a case where the prosecution has proved the recovery of the alleged contraband/charas from the possession of the accused. The so called material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by learned defence counsel, are actually trivial in nature, which do not ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 15 affect the prosecution case at all. It is not the case that any prejudice has been caused to the accused by these trivial discrepancies. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are .
consistent and corroborate each and every facet of search, recovery, seizure, preparation of documents and arrest of the accused. Nothing has been brought to our notice, which can lead to even a semblance of an inference that the statements of prosecution witnesses, are either not trustworthy or do not inspire confidence. The statements of official witnesses, are coherent and natural. The chance recovery of contraband from accused persons, stands proved on record.
3(iii)(e). Learned defence counsel further contended that:- the time of seizure, as per NCB Form Ext.PW-7/A, was 07.00 p.m.; however, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was spotted at 07.00 p.m. and the case property was taken into possession at 08.30 p.m. vide memo Ext.PW-5/E;
thus, in no circumstances, time of seizure can be reflected as 07.00 p.m., as mentioned in NCB Form.
It is the consistent case of the material prosecution witnesses that accused was apprehended at around 07.00 p.m. All codal formalities of search, seizure, recovery, arrest of accused and preparation of documents, were carried out and completed in accordance with law. Police ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 16 party returned to Police Station and Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW-
4/B, GD No.25(A), was accordingly entered at 11.15 p.m. on 24.02.2010. PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand deposited the case .
property with PW-1 MHC Lal Chand in the Malkhana of Police Station at 11.15 p.m. on 24.02.2010, itself. This point is otherwise not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case when recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of accused has been proved on record, in accordance with law.
r Regarding seal impression.
3(iv). Learned counsel for the appellant-accused further argued that; as per the case of the prosecution, the case property was in the form of 'chapati, balls and sticks', which was sealed with nine impressions of seal 'A' and the bag from which the contraband was recovered, was also sealed with nine impressions of seal 'A'; however, the bag in question, when produced in the trial Court, was having only one impression of seal 'A' and the case property did not bear any seal impression.
Complete chain of link evidence has been established by the prosecution that case property remained intact from time of its seizure till it was tested in SFSL, Junga.
PW-7 Inspector Vidya Chand, deposited case property with PW-
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 171 MHC Lal Chand in Malkhana on 24.02.2010 at 11.15 p.m. PW-
1 MHC Lal Chand, kept the same in Malkhana and made entry in the Register Ext.PW-1/A. It was sent to SFSL, Junga, through .
PW-6 HHC Diwan Singh. All the witnesses have deposed that case property remained intact and was not tempered with.
The SFSL report Ext.PW-7/D, reveals that nine seals on the case property were found intact at the time of receiving the same in the Laboratory and the seals tallied with the specimen of seal Ext.PW-5/D. The report further reveals that the parcels remained in the safe custody in SFSL, Junga, till the chemical analysis report was signed and dispatched. The report further reveals that the recovered contraband was found to be charas.
It is not the case of the accused that police personnels had any reason to falsely implicate the accused person in the alleged offence. There is complete chain of the link evidence to show that the case property remained intact from the time of seizure, till it was examined in SFSL, Junga. In this backdrop, in our considered view, after examining the contraband and analysing it as charas by SFSL, Junga, the plea taken by learned defence counsel with regard to missing of seal impressions on the case property, looses its significance, in ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 18 view of complete chain of events and link evidence having been adduced and established by the prosecution on record.
3(v). Defence of accused:
.
3(v)(a). Accused has taken up the plea of false
implication. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused, answered question No.23, in following manner:-
"I came to Rampur for taking money from one Sotia. He called me to Nirmand. When I reached Nirmand I called him on his mobile. In the meantime police came there and took me to police Station and planted false case on me."
3(v)(b). In defence, the accused himself stepped into the witness-box as DW-1, besides producing one other witness Sh. Sothia (DW-2).
The defence of the accused (DW-1) was that:-
DW-2 Sothia had borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him about 5-6 years ago and that in order to collect this money from Sothia, he had travelled from Karnal to Rampur via bus on 24.02.2010;
he further stated that when he reached Rampur at 01.15 p.m., Sothia (DW-2), asked him on phone, to come to Nirmand;
therefore, he (accused) hired a taxi from Rampur to Nirmand;
Sothia met him at Nirmand Bus Stand and asked him to wait ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 19 while he gets his money; while waiting at Nirmand Bus Stand, he (accused) was apprehended by the police and falsely implicated. This story, narrated by the accused (DW-1), has .
been completely thrashed in his cross-examination. The accused (DW-1), described the type of hired vehicle as Sumo, whereas, DW-2 Sothia, stated that the accused had come in Alto vehicle. Accused did not remember taxi number hired by him for coming to Nirmand from Rampur. He did not even remember the fare paid by him, while coming from Karnal to Rampur. He did not have the bus tickets either. It is otherwise unbelievable that Rs.40,000/-, allegedly having been given by the accused to Sothia (DW-2) 5/6 years ago, would have been returned by Sothia on the day of the alleged occurrence, merely on a telephone call allegedly having been made by accused 2-3 days prior to the day of occurrence. As per accused, he knew Sothia for the last 12-13 years, whereas as per Sothia's statement, he did not even meet the accused in Jail. The projection of alleged close acquaintance between two is not evident. No complaint was made by DW-2 Sothia or by the accused or by their family member(s) to high authorities regarding alleged false implication of accused. It is also noticeable here that accused was stated to be involved in three criminal cases under Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP 20 and one under Indian Penal Code. This is borne out from identification form appended to Challan. The accused has failed to substantiate his defence.
.
No other point was urged before us.
In view of the above discussions and observations, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case on record, against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. No interference is required in the findings of conviction against the accused returned by learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-convict is dismissed and the judgment of of conviction passed by learned trial Court against the appellant-convict for committing offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is upheld.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
August 28, 2019 Judge
(yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:45:35 :::HCHP