Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyawan vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2022
CRA-S-2571-SB-2007(O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2571-SB-2007(O&M)
Date of decision:-29.7.2022
Satyawan
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Ms.Pushp Gupta, Advocate for
Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Appellant/accused Satyawan was tried by Special Judge, Jind
in case FIR No.193 dated 30.10.2004 for an offence under Section 20 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'), Police Station Uchana and in terms of judgment
dated 19.11.2007, the accused/appellant was convicted in that case for the
offence for which he was booked and vide order dated 21.11.2007, he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.30,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
1 of 7
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution version
are that on 30.10.2004, the accused was apprehended by a police party
from Police Station Uchana, District Jind led by ASI Ved Parkash, which
was on patrol duty going from bus stand, Uchana to village Palwan. The
accused had came from the side of village Palwan and he had been
apprehended on the basis of suspicion at T-point, Palwan. ASI Ved
Parkash suspected that accused was in possession of some contraband, as
such, he served notice upon accused informing him of his right to get his
search conducted in presence of some gazetted officer or a Magistrate.
The accused vide memo Ex.PE/1 reposed confidence in the Investigating
Officer. Thereafter, personal search of accused was conducted and he was
found to be carrying CHARAS wrapped in a polythene paper in the left
pocket of the shirt worn by him.
The Investigating Officer drew sample of 25 gms. of charas and the
remaining CHARAS on being weighed came to be 175 gms. The sample
and bulk were converted into sealed parcels sealed with seal of the
Investigating Officer and taken into police possession. A ruqa was sent to
the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. The
accused was accordingly arrested in this case. The site plan of the place of
recovery was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On return
to the police station, accused along with the recovered contraband was
produced before SI Prem Chand, SHO of Police Station Uchana, who
verified the facts and circumstances of the case and put his own seal on
each parcel. Thereafter, the case property was deposited with the MHC of
the police station and accused was put up in lock up.
2 of 7
3. During the investigation, a sample parcel was sent to the
office of Chemical Examiner, Haryana and as per report received
therefrom, it was found to be that of CHARAS. On completion of
investigation, accused was challaned and sent up to face trial.
4. On presentation of challan in the Court of learned Special
Judge, Jind, he supplied copies of documents relied upon therein to the
accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then
observing that prima facie charge for an offence under Section 20 of the
Act was disclosed against the accused, he was charge-sheeted
accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined
as many as seven witnesses i.e. PW1 Gaje Singh, Patwari, PW2 SI Kartar
Singh Dahiya, PW3 SI Prem Chand,, PW4 EASI Basheshar Dutt, PW5
HC Jai Narain, PW6 ASI Ved Parkash and PW7 Constable Surinder
Singh.
6. With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.
7. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him were put to him but he denied the allegations contending that he is
innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
8. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
9. After hearing arguments, learned trial Court convicted and
sentenced accused as mentioned above, which left him aggrieved and he
has filed the present appeal, which came up for hearing on 7.1.2008 when
it was admitted for regular hearing and on an application under Section
3 of 7
389 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the appellant/accused for suspension of
his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of appeal, the same
was allowed on 29.9.2008. Now the case has come up for regular hearing.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused -
convict, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana
besides going through the record.
11. PW5 HC Jai Narain, PW7 Constable Surinder Singh
recovery witnesses and ASI Ved Parkash, Investigating Officer have fully
supported the prosecution story on all aspects. It stands duly proved on
record that on 30.10.2004 in the area of T-point, Palwan, accused was
found in conscious possession of 200 grams of CHARAS without any
permit or licence. They were cross-examined at length on behalf of the
accused but they remained unshattered and unanimous regarding material
details of the episode. A few minor contradictions in their statements do
not go to the root of matter since those are bound to occur due to
difference in power of perception, observation and retention of events in
various persons and so also due to lapse of memory due to passage of
time etc. The official witnesses had no reason to involve the accused in
this case wrongly, challan him falsely or to depose against him to secure
his conviction.
12. The other evidence produced by the prosecution is
corroborative in nature, which supports the prosecution story on material
aspects. PW1 Gaje Singh, Patwari Halqa, Palwan had prepared the scaled
site plan of the place of recovery on demarcation of HC Jai Narain and he
deposed in that regard. PW2 SI Kartar Singh Dahiya stated that on
4 of 7
19.2.2005 while posted as SHO, P.S. Uchana, on that day on receipt of
FSL report Ex.PB, he had prepared challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
PW3 SI Prem Chand had deposed that on 30.10.2004 while he was posted
as SI/SHO P.S. Uchana, on that day, accused along with the case property
had been produced before him by the Investigating Officer and he had
verified the facts and then put his own seal on the parcels, thereafter got
the case property deposited with MHC. He stated that he had prepared his
report Ex.PC/1 and sent the same to the DSP, Narwana. PW4 EASI
Basheshar Dutt, a formal witness tendered in evidence his affidavit
Ex.PD.
13. The prosecution had successfully proved that there was no
tampering of the case property and sample taken from the recovered
contraband and the same had reached office of Chemical Examiner
without any tampering and as per report received therefrom, it was found
to be that of CHARAS. There is nothing on record to suggest that any
mandatory provision of law had been violated. The accused has not been
able to render any reasonable or plausible explanation, which might have
cast a doubt in the mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
14. Therefore, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the
judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Rather it is based upon proper
appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law.
The prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused
beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted by the
trial Court.
15. Now coming to the sentence part. The trial Court had
5 of 7
sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
16. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the State
counsel, the appellant/accused has undergone 1 year, 2 months and 14
days of total sentence including remissions, which includes post
conviction period of 10 months and 11 days. The actual undergone period
including custody as undertrial is shown to be 1 year, 2 months and 14
days. The appellant/accused is not shown to be involved in any other
criminal case.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has
contended that the appellant is a poor person and is only bread winner of
his family; he is not a previous convict, therefore, sentence of the
appellant/accused be reduced substantially.
18. Though learned State counsel has opposed any reduction in
the sentence but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused,
the mitigating circumstances explained by learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of his
conviction, further about 18 years have elapsed from the date of recovery
and 15 years from the date of conviction; there is nothing on record to
show that he had indulged in any criminal activity after suspension of his
remaining sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of the
appeal, I find that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
should be reduced to one already undergone by him in this case.
6 of 7
19. In that way, while upholding the judgment of conviction
passed against the appellant/accused, the order of sentence is modified
and his sentence is reduced to one already undergone by him in this case.
Whereas, the fine part is kept as intact. The appellant/accused is directed
to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from
today and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused
shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo sentence in
default of payment of fine by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind by issuing
Non-bailable warrants of arrest against him.
20. As such the appeal challenging the impugned judgment
stands disposed of with above modification in sentence.
Intimation be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind for
necessary compliance.
29.7.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : No / Yes
Whether reportable : No / Yes
7 of 7
