Judgment Reserved on 18.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 10.09.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police v. 1. Bhola Singh Rajput, S/o
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.09.10 16:17:11 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 168 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 18.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 10.09.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Chhuriya, District- Rajnajdgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Bhola Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Ramlal Rajput, aged about 60 Years, R/o Kohka Board, Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2. Bhola Ram Patel, S/o Shri Teerath Ram Patel, aged about 28 Years, R/o Lal Bahadur Nagar, O.P. Chichola, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respective Respondents : Ms. Usha Chandrakar and Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocates. 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 31.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge under NDPS Act, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Special Case No.01/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act') and respondent No.2- Bholaram Patel of the charge under Section 25(A) of the NDPS Act on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.01.2011, Sub-Inspector 2 Rajesh Devdas (PW-13) of O.P. Chichola received a secret information that illegal ganja is being transported from Dongargarh in a white Maruti van. Thereafter, the police party, along with the witnesses, proceeded to L.B. Nagar, as informed by the informer, and intercepted the van bearing registration No. CG-04-ZP-2141. Accused- Mahesh Das was found to be driving the vehicle, while accused- Bhola Singh Rajput was found to be seated inside. Upon search, a pocket diary was recovered from accused- Bhola Singh and one sack emitting the smell of ganja and other articles were recovered from vehicle at the instance of accused- Bhola Singh and after weighing the said contraband, it was found to be 22.400 kg. During investigation, one mobile phone was also seized from accused- Bholaram Patel vide Ex.P-6. Vide Ex.P-2, FIR was registered against the accused persons and the seized samples were sent to FSL, which confirmed the seized substance to be ganja (Ex.P-38). 3. During interrogation, it was found that accused- Bhola Singh and one Khan of Rajhara had transported the contraband in the said vehicle. Investigation further revealed that the said vehicle had been sold to one Idrish Khan on 14.01.2011, who remained absconding. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. During the trial, accused- Mahesh Das absconded and proceedings continued against the remaining accused persons/respondents. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of aforesaid charges leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of said 3 charges by recording perverse findings. She would further submit that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-13 Rajesh Devdas, I.O., to connect the accused persons/respondents with the offence alleged against them. She 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 persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-13 Rajesh Devdas, Investigating Officer with regard to alleged search and seizure proceedings. They would further submit that independent witnesses to the alleged seizure and search proceedings namely PW-3 Manoj Kumar Baghel and PW-9 Pramod Sinha and that PW-7 Jagdish Nandagauri, who allegedly weighed the Ganja, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He would also submit that the seized articles were not kept in the safe custody. He would also contend that the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As regards involvement of the respondents in the crime in question, the evidence of PW-13 Rajesh Devdas, Investigating Officer, is very significant. He has deposed that on 16.01.2011, he received a secret information that illegal ganja is being transported from Dongargarh in a 4 white Maruti van. Thereafter, he along with police party and the witnesses proceeded to L.B. Nagar, as informed by the informer, and intercepted the van. He has further stated that accused- Mahesh Das was found to be driving the vehicle, while accused- Bhola Singh Rajput was found to be seated inside. He has further stated that a pocket diary was recovered from accused- Bhola Singh and one sack emitting the smell of ganja and other articles were recovered from vehicle at the instance of accused- Bhola Singh and after weighing the said contraband, it was found to be 22.400 kg, out of which, two samples of 50-50 grams each were drawn, sealed and the remaining contraband was repacked and sealed in two sacks and after that, he conducted the further proceedings in accordance with NDPS provisions. However, a perusal of the record would show that the seizure memo (Ex.P-1) mentions that two sacks of the alleged contraband were seized in sealed condition, but it does not state that 50-50 gms of two sample packets were sealed. This apart, the Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-23C) does not show that the two sacks or the sample packets were deposited in the Malkhana, nor does it indicate that the seized articles were “sealed” upon deposit. Further, a perusal of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-2A) reveals that it was registered on 17.01.2011 at 5:15 AM, while the weighing panchnama (Ex.P-10) shows that the weighing of the seized articles was done at 8:00 am and the seizure memo (Ex.P-11) states that the seizure was effected at 9:00 AM, but PW-13 Rajesh Devdas, I.O., did not clarify the reason for occurring gap between the seizure proceedings and in recording of Dehati Nalishi. Furthermore, documents (Ex.P-3 search panchnama of police party, Ex.P-4 Depositing of search panchnama & Ex.P-6 Search Panchnama) would show that there are overwriting of timings in the said documents, which raises doubts regarding the authenticity of the records. Moreover, in 5 Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-23C), it is mentioned that only one sack was seized, while the seizure memo (Ex.P-11) states that two sacks were seized, this inconsistency also weakens the prosecution's case. Besides, as per Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-23C), seized articles were deposited on 17.01.2011 and as per FSL memo, seized articles were sent to FSL on 22.01.2011, but prosecution has failed to establish where the seized articles were kept in safe custody or in sealed condition during the said intervening period and that the prosecution has also not established that the sample packets marked as A & B, which were sent to the FSL, were the same sample packets drawn at the time of seizure. Further, no marks of A & B was mentioned on sample packets in seizure memo (Ex.P-11), casting doubt on the prosecution's case. Apart from that, independent witnesses to the alleged seizure and search proceedings namely PW-3 Manoj Kumar Baghel and PW-9 Pramod Sinha and that PW-7 Jagdish Nandagauri, who allegedly weighed the ganja, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In addition to above, from the accused -Bhola Ram only one mobile phone was recovered, but there is no evidence on record to link him with the alleged crime in question. Besides above, there are contradictions in the statements of PW-13 Rajesh Devdas, I.O. and accompanying staff members PW-4 Aditya Singh and PW-10 Balram Singh Rajput regarding the presence of the accused persons during the vehicle search. According to PW-13, only two accused persons were present at the spot, whereas PW-4 and PW-10 stated that three persons were present in the vehicle, which would further weaken the prosecution's case. 9. 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-13 Rajesh Devdas, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the 6 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 of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution appear to be 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 respondents 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 respondents in the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charges leveled against them on the basis of benefit of doubt. 10. 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 No.1 of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and respondent No.2 of the charge under Section 25(A) of NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 11. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh