High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.06.26 15:50:03 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 98 of 2012 Judgment Reserved on 17.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on 26.06.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. versus ...Appellant • Vishnu Kumar Soni, S/o Kamla Prasad Soni, aged about 45 years, R/o Ramnagar, Baloda, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate. ... Respondent Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 05.03.2011 passed by the Special Judge under NDPS Act, Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.07/2010, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act') on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.2010 at about 15:30 2 hours, PW-12 D.L. Mishra, Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Baloda, received a secret information from the informant that present respondent/accused has kept illegal ganja in his residence for sale. Thereafter, he prepared panchnama of informer's information vide Ex.P-25 and forwarded the same to Higher Official. Thereafter, witnesses were summoned to the police station through notices and informed them about the information received from the informant. Thereafter, he along with staff and witnesses rushed to the spot as informed by the informer and after reaching the spot, he told the respondent about the information received by him from informer. In compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, a notice vide (Ex.P-7) was given to the respondent. Thereafter, personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the respondent. As per the consent of the respondent vide Ex.P-8, Police team searched the respondent and did not find anything and when the house of the accused was searched in presence of the witnesses, a narcotic substance like ganja was found kept in eight sacks inside one of the rooms. Along with the 8 sacks of ganja, cash of sold ganja amounting to Rs.15,240/- and weighing scales were also found and the same were seized vide Ex.P-19 (seizure memo). After that, recovery panchnama (Ex.P-13) was prepared on the spot in presence of the witnesses and after smelling and rubbing the same, the recovered substance was found to be ganja. Thereafter, Samras Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-15 and following the provisions of law, ganja was weighed and weighing panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P.17 and total ganja of 165 kg was recovered. Two samples of 50 gms each were 3 drawn from the recovered ganja, sealed separately and marked. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-22. After completion of proceedings, FIR vide Ex.P-43 was lodged against the respondent. Seized articles were sent to Malkhana vide Ex.P-26 and thereafter, respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-20. Seized samples packets were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-50-A), the recovered substance was found to be ganja. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the Special Judge under NDPS Act. The respondent abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents in support of case of the prosecution. In his defence, the respondent has examined none, but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charge leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence of PW-12 D.L. Mishra, I.O, to connect the accused/respondent with the offence alleged against him. He would also submit that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with by the prosecution and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent 4 without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-12 D.L. Mishra, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution and independent witnesses. He would further submit that Samras panchnama has been prepared simultaneously for all seized articles, and if that be so, then how weighment of each sack has been shown separately in the seizure memo, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He also submits that no marks of A & B was mentioned on samples packets to be kept in the Malkhana Panji and seizure memo and that, sample seal was also not affixed in Malkhana Panji. He would also submit that independent witnesses in this case namely PW-3 Neel Kumar Miri and PW-4 Santosh Kumar Yadav, who are cited as witnesses to seizure and other proceedings, and that PW-10 Manoj Kumar, who is said to be weighed the Ganja, have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He would also submit that the seized articles were also not kept in the safe custody. He would also contend that the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record and material documents, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to connect the respondent with the crime in question, which resulted into his acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. As regards involvement of the respondent in the crime in question, the evidence of PW-12 D.L. Mishra, Investigating Officer, is very significant. He has deposed that on 22.03.2010, he received a secret information from the informant that present respondent/accused has kept illegal ganja in his residence for sale. Thereafter, he prepared panchnama of informer's information vide Ex.P-25 and the same given to Higher Official. Thereafter, witnesses were summoned to the police station through notices and informed them about the information received from the informant. After that, he along with staff and witnesses rushed to the spot and after reaching the spot, he informed the respondent about the information received by him from informer. In compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, a notice vide (Ex.P-7) was given to the respondent. Thereafter, personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the respondent. As per the consent of the respondent, Police team searched the respondent and did not find anything and 6 when the house of the accused was searched, a narcotic substance like ganja was found kept in as many as eight sacks and the same was recovered vide Ex.P-13. Along with seized contraband, cash of sold ganja amounting to Rs.15,240/- and weighing scales were also seized vide Ex.P-19. After that, recovery panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13 and after smelling and rubbing the same, the recovered substance was found to be ganja. Thereafter, Samras panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-15 and ganja was weighed and weighing panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P.17 and total ganja of 165 kg was recovered. It is pertinent to mention here that Samras panchnama has been prepared vide Ex.P-15 simultaneously for all seized articles on 22.03.2010 at 16:45 hours, and if that be so, then how the weighment of each sack has been shown separately in the seizure memo (Ex.P-19) prepared on the same date at 17:00 hours and before preparation of Samras Panchanama, there is no description anywhere at all in the record with respect to weighment of ganja kept in 8 sacks, making the prosecution story doubtful. That apart, this witness has further stated that two samples of 50 gms each were drawn from the recovered ganja, sealed separately and marked, but in Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-27C), nowhere marks of A & B were mentioned in the sample packets as well as in the seizure memo and that there is no mention in the Thana Malkhana Panji that the seized articles were in sealed condition and the name of the person who made the sample packets was also not mentioned anywhere in the record. Apart from this, there is no iota of evidence on record to show that samples packets were prepared from all eight seized sacks. Moreover, as per Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-27C), seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination on 7 23.03.2010, but in copy of Roznamcha Sanha (Ex.P-38), it is mentioned that the seized articles were sent to FSL on 24.03.2010 and that there is no identification marks (A & B) classified on sample packets and it is also not mentioned in the copy of Roznamcha Sanha that out of six packets of 50 gms each, the same two sample packets were sent to FSL for its examination. However, on the contrary, perusal of FSL report (Ex.P-50A) would show that seized articles were received on 25.03.2010 containing sign of marks A & B on sample packets, but the seized samples do not bear the signature of any witness or accused, which also makes the prosecution story doubtful. Apart from that, PW-1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Constable No.90-393, admitted in his cross-examination that Station In-charge had given him permission to deposit the seized articles, but when the seized property was already kept in Thana Malkhana, then why Station In-charge would permit him to deposit the same, which also creates doubt in the prosecution story. Furthermore, independent witnesses (witnesses to documents {Exs.P-6 to P-23}) in this case namely PW-3 Neel Kumar Miri and PW-4 Santosh Kumar Yadav and that PW-10 Manoj Kumar, Weigher, have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 11. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-12 D.L. Mishra, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other witnesses and the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, which makes his version doubtful and untrustworthy. Further, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that after seizure, the seized property was sealed properly and kept in safe custody. Even if the case 8 of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution are vitiated and doubtful. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove all the facts of the charge leveled against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it has also miserably failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show the complicity of the respondent in the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charge leveled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt. 12. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh