Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.679 of 2002
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2002 and order of sentence dated
14.08.2002, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in Special Case No.07/1997 (arising out of Potka
P.S. Case No.44 of 1997)].
Rohit Kumar Mandal, S/o Gobind Mandal, R/o Village Sangram, P.S. Potka,
District:- Singhbhum East. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Asit Baran Mahto, Advocate
Mr. Upendra Nath Mahto, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
.....
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 18.11.2024. Pronounced on 25.11.2024.
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. :-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction
dated 12.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2002, passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Jamshedpur,
East Singhbhum, in Special Case No.07/1997 (arising out of Potka P.S. Case
No.44 of 1997)] whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted
under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI of ten years
and a fine of Rupees One Lakh and in default of same, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Informant of the case is the Officer-in-Charge of Potka P.S. As per the FIR on
05.07.1997 at about 9:30 a.m. Officer-in-charge Telco PS informed him that
trafficking of Charas was going under the territorial jurisdiction of his Police
Station. In order to nab the persons involved, he had set up himself as an
undercover purchaser of the contraband of Charas. Time for the said delivery
was fixed at about 11:30 a.m. at the Charas near Hatajuri Railway Crossing.
Informant along with the I.O. moved to the place where the delivery was to
be made. He had informed the Dy. S.P. Ghatsila on wireless and requested
him to come in plain dress. Informant alongwith other police personnel
arrived at the designated place, where two persons were spotted coming by
foot and with bicycle from the southern side near Railway Crossing. On the
approach of the police party two of them tried to escape. One person with a
Jhola was apprehended who disclosed his name as Rohit Kr. Mandal
(Appellant) and other managed to escape. The Dy. S.P. Ghatsila recovered a
Plastic Jhola from his right hand containing eight pieces of charas, weighed
about two Kg. Seziure list was prepared and a copy of the seizure list was also
handed over to the accused. Contraband was seized and sealed on the spot, in
presence of Dy. S.P. and independent witnesses.
3. On the basis of statement of the informant/Officer in charge, Potka P.S. Case
No. 44 of 1997 was registered against the appellant/ accused and another.
After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken
and the appellant/accused was put on trial for the offence under Sections 20
and 21 of the NDPS Act.
4. In order to prove the case, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution and relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and
marked as Exhibits.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is vital
contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as such, their evidence
cannot be relied upon. Seizure list witness had turn hostile and the prosecution
case was not proved by any independent witness.
6. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence. It is submitted that the contraband articles had been
recovered from the bag i.e., jhola of the accused/appellant and not from
conscious physical possession and therefore Section 50 of the NDPS Act shall
not apply.
7. In the present case, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the seizure list witnesses who have
identified the signatures on seizure list, but have not supported the factum of
seizure to be made in their presence and consequently, were declared hostile.
P.W. 3 is police personnel who was member of the raiding party, has deposed
that on 05.07.1997, he had accompanied Officer-in-Charge, Telco, A.J.
Bodra, Officer-in-Charge, Pursudih, Sanjeev Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of
Potka- Dhananjay Singh and D.S.P., Ghatshila and Driver Constable-
Jagdeesh Sharma in plain dress where the appellant was apprehended by them
with the packets of Charas. The seizure list was prepared at the place of
occurrence. P.W. 4 is the informant who has given the detailed account of
search and seizure made in the presence of police party. The appellant was
apprehended carrying a bag and in the presence of D.S.P., the bag was
searched from which 2 Kg. of Charas was seized. He has proved the seizure
list which has been marked as Exhibit 3.
P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer and has corroborated the testimony
of the other witnesses on the point of search and seizure. The seized
contraband were produced before the Court and was marked as Exhibit I -
VIII. The sample from the seized article, was sent for chemical examination
to FSL, Kolkata.
8. In view of these evidences, search and seizure cannot be disbelieved only for
the reason that seizure list witnesses have turned hostile. Law is settled that
evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely because the seizure
list witnesses have turned hostile [see (2008) 2 East Cr. Case 175; (2013) 3
JLJR 477 SC]. Learned trial Court has considered all these aspects as well as
the FSL report while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence
which is accordingly, affirmed.
The appellant is on bail, as such, he is directed to surrender before the
learned Trial Court so as to serve rest of the sentence.
The instant Cr. Appeal (DB) stands dismissed.
Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 25th November, 2024.
Sandeep/Pawan
