Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balwinder Singh & Another 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.32 of 2017 Reserved on: 06.08.2019 Decided on: August 28, 2019.
.
Balwinder Singh & Another ..........Appellants.
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 appellants : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Anuj Gupta and Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocates.
For the respondent :
Mr. Narinder Guleria and Mr. Vikas
Rathore, Additional Advocate
Generals.
__________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Instant appeal has been preferred by appellants Balwinder Singh and Prakash Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "accused persons" in short), against the judgment dated 21.07.2016, passed by learned Special Judge (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Trial No.37 of 2015, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Balvinder Singh and Another, whereby both the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 2
referred to as the "Act" in short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each, alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the .
convicts have to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years.
2. Prosecution Case:
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:-
2(i). On 09.02.2015, a police party, headed by ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, consisting of other police officials, namely, HC Girdhari Lal, Constable Shashi Kumar, Constable Hem Singh, Constable Mitra Dev, Constable Daya Ram, HHG Desh Raj and HHG Roop Singh, was on Nakabandi duty at a place Jhalogi, District Mandi, H.P. 2(ii). At about 03.00 p.m., a XYLO Car, bearing registration No.PB-11BK-8464, came from Kullu side towards Mandi on National Highway-21. The police party stopped the car. The vehicle was being driven by accused Balvinder Singh and the other accused Prakash Singh was on the conductor seat. Both the accused persons disclosed themselves as residents of State of Punjab.
2(iii). On search of the vehicle by Investigating Officer, one pink colour polythene packet marked "Surinder Di Hatti", was noticed lying in between front seats near gear box.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 3
The contents of polythene packet, were described as their personal articles by the accused persons. On checking the same, round and chapati shaped black colour substance was .
found therein. The Investigating Officer, based on his experience, concluded the substance to be contraband/charas.
The charas, on weighing, was found to be 1Kg. 250 grams. All provisions of law were complied with, while effecting search and recovery. The recovered articles were packed in the same polythene packet Ext.P-2, kept in cloth parcel Ext.P-1, and sealed with 10 seal impressions of seal 'A'. NCB-I Form (Ext.PW-6/A), in triplicate, was filled and separate specimen of seal impression was taken on a piece of cloth and seal was handed over to HC Girdhari Lal (PW-8). The parcel Ext.P-1, alongwith NCB-I Form in triplicate and the seal, was taken into possession by the Investigation Officer, through a Furd (Ext.PW-
6/D) signed by PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal, Constable Shashi Kumar as well as the accused persons. The vehicle was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Rukka (Ext.PW-6/E) was sent through Constable Mitra Dev to Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, on the basis of which, FIR (Ext.PW-
7/A) was registered against the accused persons. Site plan (Ext.PW-6/E) of the spot was prepared by the Investigating ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 4 Officer. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ext.PW-6/H & Ext.PW-6/J. 2(iv). On the same day, I.e. 09.02.2015, the case .
property was handed over to PW-7 Lokender Singh Negi, for re-
sealing alongwith documents. PW-7 Lokender Singh Negi, re-
sealed the case property with 3 seals of impression 'L', which was also embossed on NCB form. Re-seal certificate Ex-PW7/C was prepared. Cloth parcel Ex-P-1, alongwith sample seal impression & NCB form, was handed over to MHC Sanjeev Kumar. Special Report (Ext.PW-2/A) was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.02.2015. Copy of Malkhana register is Ex.PW-3/A. Result of chemical analysis was obtained from State Forensic Science Laboratory, vide Ext.PW-6/K. 2(v). On completion of all codal formalities, Challan was prepared and presented before learned trial Court. The accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2(vi). To establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence was initially led by the accused persons. However, during pendency of instant appeal, vide order dated 10.04.2018, passed in Cr.MP No.22 of 2018 in ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 5 the appeal, accused were allowed to produce additional evidence before learned trial Court, whereafter, DW-1 Inspector Lokender Singh Negi and DW-2 HC Himat Ram were produced .
in the witness-box on behalf of accused Prakash Singh.
2(vii). On conclusion of the trial, the accused persons were held guilty and convicted by learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 20 and 29 of the Act.
Accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each.
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.
3(ii). Learned defence counsel has argued following aspects in the present appeal:-
(I). Independent witnesses were not
associated;
(ii). Contradictions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses;
(iii). Infirmities regarding identity of case
property;
(iv). Log Book entries not tallying with Rapat
Rojnamcha-Daily Diary entries.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP
6
Independent Witnesses.
3(iii) Learned defence counsel, contended that in the
instant case, no independent witness was associated by the .
Investigating Officer, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved by it in accordance with provisions of the Act. Learned defence counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon 2017(4) Criminal Court Cases 531, titled Krishan Chand versus State of H.P. 3(iii)(a). PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, has deposed that place of Nakka was at an isolated place and no independent witness was available. However, the drivers of the vehicles, who were going from NH-21, were asked to join the proceedings, but, none of them was willing to be associated as a witness. It is thereafter, that the Investigating Officer PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, associated HC Girdhari Lal and Constable Shashi Kumar, as witnesses of the proceedings.
3(iii)(b). PW-8 HC Girdhari Lala, has also corroborated in totality, the above statement of PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar. Similar is the stand of PW-1 Constable Mitra Dev. In fact, to the suggestion of defence about some nearby Khokhas, he has specifically stated that Khokhas were closed and no independent witness was available.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 73(iii)(c). Ext.PW-6/C, seizure memo as well as Rukka Ext.PW.6/E, also record the fact that; police party had made efforts to associate independent witnesses; however, at the .
place of Nakka, being isolated, no independent witness was available; further, that the efforts of police party to associate the drivers of the vehicles, moving on NH-21, also went in vain as no one was willing to join the proceedings as witness. It is under these circumstances that the Investigating Officer PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar joined PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal and Constable Shashi Kumar, as witnesses of the proceedings.
3(iii)(d). It is by now well settled that prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only because the independent witnesses were not associated.
It is apt to rely upon (2010) 3 SCC 746, titled Ajmer Singh versus State of Haryana, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"19. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be relied upon as their testimony, has not been corroborated by any independent witness. We are unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW-3, Paramjit Singh Ahalwat, D.S.P., Pehowa; PW-4 Raja Ram, Head Constable and PW-5 Maya Ram, which is on record, that efforts were made by the investigating party to include independent witness at the time of recovery, but none was willing. It is true that a charge under the Act is ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 8 serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and a fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an .
inviolable rule. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is acquitted merely because no independent witness has been produced.
20. We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence.
21. In the present case, both the trial court and the High Court by applying recognized principle of evaluation of evidence of witnesses has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant was arrested and Charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant for which he had no licence. We find no good reason to differ from that finding."
In (2013) 6 SCC 595, titled Kashmiri Lal versus State of Haryana, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"9. As far as first submission is concerned, it is evincible from the evidence on record that the police officials had requested the people present in the 'dhaba; to be witnesses, but they declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not make themselves available. That apart, there is no ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 9 absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer .
is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinising the evidence the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle of quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence. These aspects have been highlighted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh[1], State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another[2] and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar[3]. Appreciating the evidence on record on the unveil of the aforesaid principles, we do not perceive any acceptable reason to discard the testimony of the official witnesses which is otherwise reliable and absolutely trustworthy."
In the instant case, PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, as well as PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal, have consistently maintained in their depositions that place of Nakka, being secluded, no independent witness was available;
further that they made efforts to associate drivers of vehicles, moving on the road, as witnesses, however, no one was wiling to join the proceedings. It is not the case of defence that police party had any enmity towards accused persons. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 10 on account of inability of police party to associate independent witnesses. Point is answered accordingly.
3(iv). Contradictions in the prosecution witnesses.
Regarding Scribing of Rukka.
.
3(iv)(a). Learned defence counsel contended that prosecution witnesses have deposed in different manner in respect of scribing of Rukka Ext.PW-6/E. According to him, PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal, in his examination-in-chief as well as cross-
examination, had deposed that Rukka Ext.PW-6/E was scribed by PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar; whereas PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, though in his examination-in-chief, stated that he had scribed Rukka and handed over it to Constable Mitra Dev, however, in his cross-examination, he made a statement that Rukka was written by Constable Mitra Dev at his (IO's) instance. PW-1 Constable Mitra Dev, stated that it was PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, who had scribed Rukka and handed over it to him (Constable Mitra Dev). Learned defence counsel, relying upon 2017(4) Criminal Court Cases 531, titled Krishan Chand versus State of H.P., contended that this is material contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
3(iv)(b). We are not impressed with afore-stated argument of learned defence counsel. Writing of Rukka has not been disputed and the same stands proved on record as Ext.PW-6/E. ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 11 All the material prosecution witnesses have deposed that Rukka was written by PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar. PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar has also corroborated this version of other witnesses. Minor .
variance in his (PW-6) statement, cannot give any benefit to the accused persons. There can be minor variances in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded after lapse of time. Learned counsel has not disputed mandatory compliance of provisions of the Act. Recovery of contraband, stands proved.
In our considered view, this variance in the facts of the case, is of nature and does not affect the prosecution case. The contention of learned defence counsel is answered accordingly.
Regarding scribing of seizure memo.
3(v). Learned defence counsel next contended that seizure memo Ext.PW-6/C has not been mentioned by PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal in his statement. This contention has been raised only to be rejected. PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal, has stated that seizure memo Ext.PW-6/C was prepared and taken into possession in his presence and marginal witnesses and the accused persons had appended their signatures over it.
PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar has also deposed that seizure memo Ext.PW-6/C was prepared in accordance with law, which was written by PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal at his instance.
Even, otherwise, who wrote seizure memo, is not significant in ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 12 the facts of instant case, more so, when recovery of contraband/charas from accused persons, stands proved. The document is proved to have been scribed in accordance with .
the provisions of the Act and is proved in accordance with law.
Therefore, whether seizure memo Ext.PW-6/C was actually written by PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar or PW-8 HC Girdhari Lal, will not make any difference to the prosecution case, in the facts of the case.
Regarding identification of case property.
3(vi). Learned
r counsel for appellants-accused, has
unsuccessfully tried to raise an issue that:- as per prosecution case, the polythene packet, containing the contraband/charas, was pink in colour bearing the words 'Surender-Di-Hatti'; the SFSL report Ext.PW-6/K refers the bag as of multicolour and makes no mention about any printed mark over it. Learned counsel, however, admits that the polythene packet produced before learned trial Court was of pink colour bearing mark 'Surender-Di-Hatti'. There is no infirmity regarding identification of property. No infirmity in respect of mandatory compliance to provisions of the Act has been pointed out. Link evidence has not been disputed. Rather link evidence stands established. It is not even the case that seals were found broken.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 133(vii). Regarding entry in the Log Book.
3(vii)(a). Learned defence counsel has argued that Log Book entries do not tally with Rapat Rojnamcha-Daily Diary entries, .
therefore, prosecution case of having laid Nakka over the place in question is not proved. Learned defence counsel relied upon the statements of DW-1 Inspector Lokender Singh and DW-2 HC Himat Ram, the driver of vehicle, bearing registration No.HP-
33B-1378, to contend that there is variance in the entries in the Log Book of vehicle, vis-a-vis, entires in Rapat Rojnamcha, which go on to prove that no Nakka was laid by the police on the relevant day, time and place in question. Log Book entries Ext.DW-1/A, only show that PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, had taken out the vehicle No.HP-33B-1378, on 09.02.2015, from 11.30 a.m. to 03.30 p.m. and covered a distance of 135 kilometres between Police Station, Aut, to Nagwain-PHC Bali Chowki-Mandi Court and back to Police Station, Aut. Relying upon this entry in the Log Book, learned defence counsel contended that vehicle had never gone to the place of Nakka, i.e., Jhalogi, at 03.00 p.m. In support of his contention, learned defence counsel relied upon 2013(1) Criminal Court Cases 817, titled Krishan Chand versus State of Haryana.
3(vii)(b). As per Ext.PW-4/A, Rapat Rojnamcha No.24(A), was entered on 09.02.2015, at 12.00 (Noon), recording the factum ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 14 of PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, and police party leaving Police Station on Govt. vehicle No.HP-33B-1378, driven by DW-2 HHC Himant Ram. This was entered in .
Computer vide Ext.PW-6/A. As per Ext.PW-4/B, Rapat Rojnamcha No.42(A), entered on 09.02.2015, at 07.40 p.m., police party reported back at the Police Station and the entered the events with regard to laying of Nakka, search, recovery and arrest of accused persons. This was entered in Computer vide GD No.42(A), dated 09.02.2015, at 07.40 p.m. 3(vii)(c). As per Ext.PP-1, GD No.26(A), entered at around 11.00 a.m., on 10.02.2015, PW-6 ASI Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, had left the Police Station on the vehicle in question, alongwith accused, for the purpose of their medical examination as well as for producing them before the Magistrate. Their return to Police Station was entered at GD No.40(A), at 06.20 p.m., vide Ext.PP-2.
3(vii)(d). In our considered view, the Log Book entries Ext.DW-1/A, cannot be relied upon to discard the prosecution version in the instant case.
As observed in para supra, firstly, general diary entries, in respect of police party leaving the Police Station and returning to Police Station, alongwith accused persons, match ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 15 with computer entries as well as with the prosecution case.
Secondly, in respect of maintaining Log Book, DW-2 HC Himat Ram, who was driver at Police Station, Aut and attached with .
the vehicle in question, deposed that:- he never received any training for making entries in the Log Book; he did not know the rules for making entries in the Log Book; no monthly order was issued regarding Log Book entries; he made entries in the Log Book under the impression that the only object of such entries is to show the kilometres covered by the vehicle and fuel consumed therein. He (DW-2) himself has explained his ignorance about any requirement of law to maintain the entries in the Log Book, strictly as per the events and as per time line.
It is also his version that he did drive the vehicle on the relevant day and time to the place of Nakka in question and had seen entire events, leading to laying of Nakka, search, recovery, of 1.50 Kg. of contraband/charas from the accused persons, seizure and arrest of accused persons. As per his own deposition, he did not maintain corresponding Log Book entries, as he was under the impression that only purpose of making such entries in Log Book, was to show kilometres covered and fuel consumed by the vehicle. He has further stated that Log Book entries have been made by him as per estimate and not on daily basis. And for this reason, he did not fill in Log Book on ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 16 09.02.2015, itself, but, did it later, therefore, while trying to adjust kilometres, errors crept in it.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out .
discrepancies in time and purpose of taking out the vehicle, as entered in Ext.DW-1/A on 09.02.2015 and 10.02.2015, vis-a-vis entries in Rapat Rojnamcha. However, DW-2 HHC Himat Ram, has himself explained that entries made by him, were incorrect, as he did not maintain the Log Book as per actual events and time. He has admitted entire prosecution case of having driven the vehicle with police party to the place of Nakka and having come back to Police Station after witnessing entire happening leading to arrest of accused. Therefore, no help can be drawn by learned defence counsel by relying upon such entries in Log Book and comparing them with Rapat Rojnamcha-Daily Diary entries. The judgements relied upon by learned defence counsel are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of instant case.
No other point was urged before us.
4(i). In (2000) 1 SCC 247, titled Lekh Raj and another, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 17 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 18 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 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."::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 19
4(ii). In view of the above discussion and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, minor discrepancy or variance in prosecution witnesses will not make the prosecution's case .
doubtful.
4(iii). Present is a case where the prosecution has proved the recovery of the alleged contraband/charas from the possession of accused persons. The so called material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as pointed by learned defence counsel, are actually of trivial in nature, which do not affect the prosecution case at all. 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. Recovery of contraband from accused persons, stands proved on record. The contradictions so pointed out by learned defence counsel in the statements of prosecution witnesses, are actually minor discrepancies, which in the facts and circumstances of instant case, do not affect the prosecution case, in any manner.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:55 :::HCHP 20
5. 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 persons, 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 appellants-convicts is dismissed and the judgment of conviction, passed by learned trial Court against the appellants-convicts, for committing offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 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 02:46:55 :::HCHP