Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the instant case the appellant was falsely implicated by the police. No recovery was effected from him by SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1) in presence of DSP Ranvir Singh (PW3), and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel referred to various contradictions, illegalities and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence. Learned counsel argued that PW1- SI Vishwa Mitter in his cross-examination had stated that Form No.29 (CFSL Form) was filled up by SHO Mandip Singh (PW4) in the Police Station. However, seals `VM' and `RS' were affixed on the said Form at the spot. Those seals were also prepared at the spot. Only seals were affixed at the spot and the entire other writing work on Form No.29 was done in the Police Station by the SHO. The writing on the CFSL Form was not in his hand. It was in the hand of SHO. On the other hand, SHO Mandip Singh while appearing in the Court had stated that Form No.29 was filled up by SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1) at the spot and when the same was produced before him, it was duly filled up at that time. He stated that he did not know in whose writing the said Form was filled up. He further stated that on receipt of the said Form along with case property he put the same in the double lock with the case property. He further stated that when the CFL Form was produced before him, he put his signatures and affixed his seal on it. When it was produced before him, SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1) had not written anything on Form No.29 in his presence. It was produced duly filled up. In this regard, learned counsel further referred to the statement of PW3- Ranvir Singh, DSP. He stated that CFSL Form was filled up in his presence by SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1). He can identify his handwriting. He further stated that he had affixed his seal on Form No.29 and except that he did not affix the seal on any blank paper nor handed over the same to SI Vishwa Mitter. Learned counsel while referring to the original CFSL Form available on the record, argued that on CFSL Form No.29, the paper having three seals after cutting to the size of the seal, has been pasted. According to the learned counsel, all these contradictions made in Form No.29 clearly indicate that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

In the present case, Form No.29 was neither prepared at the spot nor it was deposited with the Incharge of the Malkhana. Even the sample seal was handed over to the police official, who was part of the investigating team, and the same was also not deposited in the Malkhana or kept in the independent hand. In this regard, there are major contradictions in the statements of PW1-SI Vishwa Mitter, PW3-DSP Ranvir Singh and PW4-SHO Mandip Singh. These major contradictions in their statements create serious doubt in the prosecution version about recovery of the alleged opium from the possession of the accused. According to PW1- SI Vishwa Mitter, Form No.29 was not filled up by him at the spot. It was filled up by SHO Mandip Singh (PW4) in the Police Station. However, according to him, seals `VM' and `RS' were affixed on the said Form at the spot. On the other hand, SHO Mandip Singh (PW4) while appearing in the Court has stated that Form No.29 was filled up by SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1) at the spot and the same was produced before him. He has categorically denied that he had filled up the Form in the Police Station and the said Form bears his writing. On the other hand, DSP Ranvir Singh (PW3) stated in the Court that CFSL Form was filled up by SI Vishwa Mitter (PW1) in his presence. He further stated that he had affixed his seal on Form No.29 at the spot. He is very categoric that he did not affix his seal on any of the blank papers nor he had handed over the same to SI Vishwa Mitter. These contradictory statements of all the three witnesses not only create a serious doubt in the prosecution version but a close examination of Form No.29, placed on record by the prosecution as original one, further deepens the doubt about its execution at the time of effecting recovery from the accused. We have seen the said Original Form available on the record. On the face of it, this document appears to be forged one. On this Form, three small papers having seals after cutting to the size of the seal, have been pasted at three different places. These seals are of `VM', `RS' and `MS'. On one hand, PW1-SI Vishwa Mitter stated that he had put his seal on the original CFSL Form and he had not filled the said Form. According to him, it was filled up by SHO Mandip Singh (PW4). On the other hand, SHO Mandip Singh (PW4) stated that he did not fill up Form No.29. The said Form was produced before him duly filled by SI Vishwa Mitter. He affixed his seal on the same as well as on the sample. PW3-DSP Ranvir Singh stated that Form No.29 was filled up at the spot by SI Vishwa Mitter and he affixed his seal on the same. In our opinion, none of the seal has been affixed on the Original Form No.29. All the three seals appear to have been subsequently pasted on the Original Form, which has been produced on the record. From these contradictions, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. From these facts, the possibility of sending the changed sample to Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be ruled out. The Forensic Science Laboratory had compared the seals on the sample from the forged Form No.29, whereas the seals were subsequently pasted on three seal impressions. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the sample of the contraband, which was examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, was the same which was alleged to have been recovered from the appellant at the time of the alleged recovery.

In Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(2) RCR (Crl.) 520, this Court has held that CFSL Form No.29 should be prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot and be deposited in the Malkhana along with sealed contrabands. It has been further held that after sealing the sample parcel of the contraband as well as remaining contraband, the seal should be handed over to the independent person so that till the case property had been deposited to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the same should not be available to the prosecuting agency. This is necessary to safeguard the possibility of the sealed contraband and the sample being tampered with by the police official. It was further held that CFSL Form should not only be prepared and sealed by the officer making seizure at the place where the case property is seized from the accused, it should also be sealed by the SHO, to whom the sample and the case property is handed over and deposited in the Malkhana along with the sample parcel. It should accompany the sample to Chemical Examiner. In another case, titled as Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR (Crl.) 681, the accused was acquitted on the grounds that the seal affixed on seized opium was given to the Head Constable and not an independent witness. The Seizing Officer failed to prepare CFSL Form on the spot, which creates a further doubt about the credibility of the entire prosecution exercise.

Similarly, in Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 226, it was held by this Court that where the seal remained with the police official after use and the CFSL Form was not prepared at the spot, it creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case as filing of such Form is a very valuable safeguard to ensure that the sealed sample is not tampered with till the contraband is analyzed by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was further held that the seal not given to the independent witness but kept with the Investigating Officer or with the raiding party, is also fatal to the prosecution case as in that situation, the possibility of the sealed contraband and the sample being tampered with, cannot be ruled out. On the similar lines, in Dayal Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 596, the benefit of non-filing of Form No.29 at the spot while effecting recovery was given to the accused. But in the present case not only CFSL Form No.29 was not prepared at the spot and it was deposited in Malkhana, but this Form was also tampered with by affixing the seals on a separate paper and then pasted on the same. In such situation, the changing of the samples of the contraband taken from the accused cannot be ruled out. In the present case, it has not been established by the prosecution that the same samples, which were taken at the time of recovery, were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report (Ex.PK) of the Chemical Examiner pertains to those samples.