Bhoop Singh @ Pappu vs State Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 4219 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            RESERVED ON : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2014
                            DECIDED ON : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2014

+                        CRL.A. 973/2011

      BHOOP SINGH @ PAPPU                                ..... Appellant
                         Through :    Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.


                         VERSUS


      STATE NCT OF DELHI                                 ..... Respondent
                         Through :    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 11.11.2010 of

learned Special Judge, NDPS (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in

Sessions Case No. 09/2009 arising out of FIR No. 318/2008 PS Pahar

Ganj by which the appellant - Bhoop Singh @ Pappu was convicted

under Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'). By an order dated 16.11.2010, the appellant

was was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine ` One lac.

2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-

sheet were that on 24.12.2008 at about 07.25 A.M. he was found in

unlawful possession of 2.5 Kg. of Charas at a public place on Rajguru

Road, near Imperial Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi. During investigation,

statements of the witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. The

exhibits were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short

'CFSL') for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act was submitted in the Court. The

appellant was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution

examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. In 313 statement, the

appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication.

DW-1 (Hukam Chand) was examined in defence. After considering the

rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record,

the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty and

sentenced him as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied,

he has preferred the appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. Material testimony to infer the appellant's

involvement in the crime is that of PW-9 (SI Sultan Singh Meena) who

along with HC Latoor Singh and Const.Jawahar Singh was on patrolling

duty in the area of police station Pahar Ganj on 24.12.2008. They had left

to patrol the area at 06.05 A.M. vide DD No.8B (Ex.PW-9/A). When they

were present near Imperial Cinema, SI Sultan Singh Meena received a

secret information that an individual would come from DBG Road side

with heavy quantity of Charas. This information was recorded as Ex.PW-

6/A and sent to SHO through Const.Jawahar Singh. PW-9 (SI Sultan

Singh Meena) deposed that thereafter, he requested four or five persons to

join the raiding party. One Puran Chand volunteered to join the

investigation. At around 07.25 A.M. on the pointing out of the secret

informer, the appellant carrying a polythene bag was asked to stop. In the

meantime, Const.Jawahar Singh handed over to him the copy of DD entry

(Ex.PW-9/B) about the directions by the SHO to carry on the

investigation. The appellant was informed about the information about

Charas in his possession. He was further informed that he had legal right

to call any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for the purpose of search.

Notice (Ex.PW-3/A) under Section 50 of NDPS Act was prepared. Its

contents were explained to the accused who put his thumb impression at

point 'Q' on Ex.PW-3/A. He refused to call any Magistrate and also

refused to take search of the police party. Endorsement about his refusal

was recoded at points 'AA' to 'AA-1' on Ex.PW-3/A and the appellant

put his thumb impression at point 'Q-1'. Further case of the prosecution is

that thereafter, on search of the bag in the right hand of the accused, five

packets were found. Each packet contained two strips of Charas. On

weighing, each strip was found containing 250 grams of Charas. The total

recovery of Charas was 2.5 Kg. 10 grams were taken from each strip as

sample. FSL form was filled up. Case property and the FSL form were

seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/B. PW-9 (SI Sultan Singh Meena)

prepared rukka (Ex.PW-9/C) and lodged First Information Report through

Const.Jawahar Singh. When ASI Rajan Singh along with Const.Jawahar

Singh arrived at the spot, SI Sultan Singh Meena handed over the custody

of the accused and the memos to him. In the cross-examination, the

witness revealed that he remained at the spot till 10.00 A.M. He denied

the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case and

nothing was recovered from his possession. Apparently, the material facts

stated by the crucial witness remained unchallenged in the cross-

examination. Nothing was suggested to the witness if there was non-

compliance of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act. The appellant did not

deny presence of witness - Puran Chand at the spot in whose presence the

contraband was recovered from his possession. He even did not disclose

as to from where else he was apprehended. Nothing material was elicited

in the cross-examination to suspect the recovery of the contraband from

his possession. No ulterior motive was assigned to the witness for false

implication.

4. PW-3 (HC Latoor Singh) and PW-10 (Const.Jawahar Singh),

other members of the raiding team have deposed on similar lines and are

consistent in their statements about the recovery of 2.5 Kg. Charas from

the bag of the appellant. In the cross-examination, PW-3 (HC Latoor

Singh) disclosed that Puran Chand was associated during investigation

and to his knowledge, he was not a witness in any other case. There were

shops on both sides of road but none of them was open at that time. He

denied the suggestion that the appellant was called from his house in the

police station and the Charas was planted upon him. It was not suggested

as to when the accused was called from his house and what was the

extraneous consideration for the police officials to involve him in a false

case in the absence of any prior enmity or animosity. No such suggestion

was put to PW-10 (Const.Jawahar Singh) in his cross-examination.

5. PW-2 (Puran Chand) is a star witness who participated in the

investigation on the request of the initial Investigating Officer. He fully

supported the prosecution and corroborated the version given by the other

members of the raiding party. He was categorical to depose that from the

possession of the accused the contraband was recovered. He identified the

memos prepared at the spot which contained his signatures. In the cross-

examination, he denied to be on visiting terms to the police station Pahar

Ganj. He claimed that he had never appeared as a witness in any police

case. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in

this case. Again, no material discrepancies could be elicited in the cross-

examination of this independent public witness who had no annoyance

with him to toe the line of the police. No motive was imputed to the public

witness to make a false statement against him. The appellant examined

DW-1 (Hukam Chand) in his defence who for the first time deposed that

the appellant had a quarrel with four individuals and has sustained head

injuries in the said incident prior to December, 2008. He further deposed

that those four individuals had told the appellant that they were associates

of one Puran Chand who used to lend rickshaws on rent. He further

deposed that the appellant used to tell him that Puran Chand used to ask

him to assist for release of his rickshaws seized by traffic police. This

statement of defence witness lends-credence to the prosecution case to the

extent that Puran Chand was not a non-existent entity. The appellant never

claimed that Puran Chand was acquainted with him or that he had any

confrontation with him or his associates any time. No such suggestion was

put in the cross-examination of PW-2 (Puran Chand) or to other witnesses.

6. From the testimonies of these witnesses, it stands established

that the contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. In

313 statement, the accused did not give plausible explanation to the

incriminating circumstances proved against him. He did not claim his

presence at any other specific place on that day. He did not examine any

family member or neighbour to substantiate his plea that he was called

from his house and was falsely implicated in this case in the police station.

Minor contradictions or discrepancies highlighted by the appellant's

counsel do not shake the basic structure of the prosecution case and are

inconsequential.

7. PW-6 (Insp.Indermeet Singh) has testified that on 24.12.2008

Const.Jawahar Singh gave him written intimation about having received

secret information at 07.05 A.M. He had returned the copy of the said

intimation after putting his initials with instructions to conduct further

proceedings to SI S.S.Meena. The copy bearing his signatures is Ex.PW-

6/A. He further deposed that at about 09.30 A.M., Const.Jawahar Singh

produced two parcels bearing marks 'A' & 'B' sealed with seal of SSM;

carbon copy of seizure memo and FSL form. He checked the parcels and

after satisfying about their preparation, affixed his own seal of ISB.

Sample seal was also affixed on FSL form. He handed over all the articles

to MHC(M) Shailesh Kumar by calling him in his office and he made

entry in register No.19. He also recorded DD No.9A (Ex.PW-6/B) in the

roznamcha in this regard. Subsequently, at about 01.00 P.M., IO ASI

Rajan Singh produced the accused before him. He made enquiries from

the accused to satisfy himself. Despite an opportunity given, the witness

was not cross-examined. PW-11 is ASI Rajan Singh who took over the

investigation. He proved report Ex.PW-4/A prepared under Section 57 of

NDPS Act. The report was put up before the SHO who forwarded the

same to ACP Pahar Ganj. The testimonies of all these witnesses establish

that there was compliance of the provisions of Section 42, 50 & 57 of

NDPS Act. Contention of the appellant's counsel about violation of

certain guidelines at the time of recovery of the contraband has no merit.

No such guidelines have been brought on record and it is not reflected as

to what prejudice was caused to the appellant for non-compliance of any

specific guideline. The Trial Court has dealt with all the material aspects

in the impugned judgment which is based upon fair appraisal of the

evidence and warrants no interference. Conviction under Section 20(b) of

NDPS Act is affirmed.

8. The sentence awarded to the appellant is the minimum

sentence prescribed for the possession of commercial quantity of the

contraband under the NDPS Act, which cannot be altered or modified.

Sentence order, however, requires modification to the extent that default

sentence for non-payment of fine of ` One lac would be SI for three

months instead of RI for one year.

9. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the

order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 / tr