Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(8) Coming to the next contention of Counsel for the appellant, which deals with the evidence and appreciation thereof, it is pointed out that Cfsl form had been filled at the spot by the Investigating Officer Si Rameshwar Dutt and he handed over the case property alongwith Cfsl form to the Sho Ved Pal Rathi Public Witness Pw 10 who in turn deposited the case property and Cfsl form on September 7, 1992 with the Moharar Malkhana and there was the corresponding entry in the Register No. 19, proved during the trial as Exhibit Public Witness Public Witness 4/A. The said extract further recorded that on October 5, 1992, the sealed sample parcel alongwith Cfsl form had been sent to Cfsl, Chandigarh through Constable Sham Lal. It is further recorded in the said document that on October 25, 1992, the sealed parcel with the seal of Cfsl, Chandigarh had been deposited with the Moharar Malkhana by Constable Narain Singh. In the light of this document, it was contended by Mr. Thakur that the Cfsl form after it was deposited with the Moharar Malkhana by the Sho, could be handed over to Constable Sham Lal only by the Moharar Malkhana having the custody of the same. The evidence of Public Witness Public Witness 2 Constable Sham Lal was referred to who stated that he had collected one sealed parcel from Moharar Malkhana, P.S. Jama Masjid on October 5,1992 and deposited the same in the office of Cfsl, Chandigarh on the same day. He categorically stated that he did not take anything else with this parcel. He, however, added that the Cfsl form had been given to him by Si Rameshwar Dutt It was contended by Mr. Thakur that Si Rameshwar Dutt, as per the testimony of Public Witness Public Witness 2 constable Sham Lal, had the custody of the Cfsl form and it was he who had handed over the Cfsl form to the Constable and not the Moharar Malkhana with whom the Sho had allegedly deposited the Cfsl form. In this context, Mr. Thakur, learned amices Curiae referred to the statement of Public Witness Public Witness 9 Rameshwar Dutt (1.0.) who admitted in his cross-examination that the public witness Bhoodev to whom the seal had been handed over after use at the spot, had returned the seal to him after about one week. "The sample parcel had been sent to the Cfsl on October 5, 1992, i.e., after about 3 weeks of the return of the seal to the 1.0. by the public witness. It was contended that Public Witness Public Witness 2 Constable Sham Lal had been examined by the prosecution as its witness, and he had not been declared hostile or cross-examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution could not back out from the said statement of its witness. From the evidence on record, it is clearly proved that not only the Cfsl form remained with the 1.0., but the seal also remained with him which had been returned to him by the public witness after about one week of the occurrence. There was thus ample opportunity and possibility to tamper with the seals on the sample packet sent to the CFSL. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the judgment given in Amarjit Singh & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admit.) reported as 1995 Jcc 91, observed in paragraph 9 as under: "THE Investigating Officer does not say that the said seal had not been taken back by him before the samples were sent to the office of the CFSL."

(9) In the instant case, there is clear evidence that seal had been taken back before the sample had been sent to the officer of CFSL.

(10) Mr. Thakur next contended that Cfsl form was not returned by the Cfsl alongwith Cfsl report with the remnants of the sample after analysis. He referred to the judgment dated August 5, 1996 of Delhi High Court (S.K. Mahajan, J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 18/93 (Mohan Kamath v. State) where it was observed that non-production of Cfsl form creates a doubt. In the instant case, Cfsl form has not been produced and one is left wondering as to what happened to the Cfsl form and where it disappeared.