Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

that the case property was destroyed in a mob attack at the police station, was not cross examined by the defence on this aspect of the matter. It was further held by learned trial Court that the contents of the Can stood proved, which demonstrated the contents of the sample and this also was not disputed by the accused as there was no cross examination of PW2 by the defence on this count. Learned trial Court also held that simply because no independent witness was associated by the police at the time of seizure of illicit liquor from the accused, could not vitiate the trial as the said sole fact could not undermine the entire prosecution case which remained un-controverted and un-contradicted.

a) According to Mr. Chandel there was perversity in the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below as both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that the case property which was allegedly recovered by the police from the accused was destroyed by a mob. Mr. Chandel submitted that neither any FIR in this regard was placed on record by the prosecution, nor any daily diary rapat was placed on record, from which it could be inferred that the police station in question was attacked by the mob and in the said attack, the case property was destroyed. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the factum of the police station concerned having been attacked by a mob has been proved in the Court by PW3 Kirpal Singh. A perusal of his deposition in the Court demonstrates that he inter alia deposed in the Court that on 30.07.1998, a mob had attacked the police station in issue and had destroyed the case property pertaining to the present case qua which FIR No. 221/1998 was registered against the accused there. Incidentally, he also .

deposed in his examination-in-chief that the case property was deposited with him by ASI on 10.11.1997. Now, this witness has not been cross examined at all by the defence. In other words, the contention of this witness that the case property which was deposited with him by the ASI on 10.11.1997 was destroyed by the mob which attacked the police station on 30.11.1997 has gone un-rebutted. Now, in these circumstances, in my considered view, when the statement of PW3 HC Kirpal Singh to the effect that the case property was destroyed in a mob attack on 30.07.1998 qua which FIR No. 221/1998 was duly registered was not disputed by the defence by subjecting the said witness to cross examination, the only conclusion which has to be drawn from the same is that the prosecution had duly established on record that the case property which was deposited by ASI Om Prakash pertaining to the present case on 10.11.1997 was destroyed in a mob attack upon the police station which took place on 30.07.1998. In this background, in my considered view, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Chandel that learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that in the absence of their being any FIR on record or the relevant entries of daily dairy rapat from which it could be inferred that the case property in issue was .

destroyed in a mob attack, the conclusion arrived at to this effect was perverse. It is again reiterated that as the deposition in this regard by PW3 was not controverted by the defence by subjecting the said witness to cross examination, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the plea that the conclusion drawn to this effect by both the learned Courts below is perverse.

b) The contention of Mr. Chandel that the judgments of conviction passed by both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside on the ground that the nip which was sent as sample to CTL Kandaghat was never produced in the Court is also without any merit. Mr. Chandel could not point out as to under which provisions of law, the sample was supposed/required to be produced before the Court. The factum of sample having been sent to CTL Kandaghat has been duly proved in the Court by PW2 Shri Satish Singh and this witness has also not been cross examined by the defence.