9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Possession and tenancy of the house where the poppy husk was found. 2. Presence and involvement of the accused at the scene. 3. Credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses. 4. Handling and integrity of the case property and samples. 5. Allegations of bias and false implication by senior police officers. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Possession and Tenancy of the House: The prosecution failed to prove that the house from which the poppy husk was recovered was in the exclusive possession of Surender Singh. The alleged landlord, Kaur Singh, denied leasing his house to Surender Singh. No rent receipt or lease document was produced. Additionally, no witness from the locality was examined to establish Surender Singh's tenancy. The court noted that the mere presence of the accused in the room did not establish possession, especially since they were not arrested at the spot. 2. Presence and Involvement of the Accused: The story of the accused absconding from the house's backside was deemed implausible given the heavy police presence. The court found it unbelievable that the accused could flee in the presence of about 12 police personnel, including an ASP. The prosecution's failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade further weakened their case. The mere presence of Shashi Atwal with Surender Singh was insufficient to prove his involvement in the crime. 3. Credibility and Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses: The court expressed doubts about the credibility of Gurtej Singh, the alleged independent witness. His name did not appear in the initial ruqa or the detailed report prepared at the time of recovery. The court concluded that Gurtej Singh appeared to be an introduced witness. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine Sub-Inspector Janak Singh, who allegedly received the secret information, making it difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the information received. 4. Handling and Integrity of the Case Property and Samples: The court found significant discrepancies in the handling of the case property. The Investigating Officer did not turn the contents of the bags to verify if they contained only poppy husk. One of the bags produced in court did not bear any seal, raising suspicions of tampering. The court also noted the delay in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner without any explanation, which was considered a serious lapse. The MHC, who was supposed to handle the case property, was not examined, further weakening the prosecution's case. 5. Allegations of Bias and False Implication: The accused alleged that they were falsely implicated due to personal vendettas with senior police officers. Although the court did not fully accept the defense's version, it emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution failed to do so, given the numerous inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The discrepancies in the evidence, handling of the case property, and lack of credible witnesses led to the acquittal of the accused. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice and the need for cogent and convincing evidence are paramount in criminal cases. The appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. They were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, and any fine deposited was to be refunded.
|
