2015 (2) TMI 1294 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? Held that - The learned trial Court did not commit any miscarriage of justice and it is further held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record - Contraband will be forfeited in favour of State of H.P. in accordance with law after the expiry of limitation for filing further proceedings. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the trial court.
2. Testimony of key witnesses and its impact on the prosecution's case.
3. Ownership and possession of the scooter from which contraband was recovered.
4. Non-examination of crucial witnesses.
5. Non-production of the original seal used in the investigation.
6. Non-resealing of parcels containing contraband.
7. Recovery of scooter from a public place.
8. Entire investigation conducted by the complainant himself.
9. Grounds for acquittal and principles for appellate review of acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Appreciation of Oral and Documentary Evidence by the Trial Court:
The appellate court examined whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The trial court's judgment was scrutinized to determine if there was a miscarriage of justice. The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment, affirming that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence placed on record.

2. Testimony of Key Witnesses and Its Impact on the Prosecution's Case:
The testimony of PW1 Balvinder Singh was found to be inconsistent and not supportive of the prosecution's case. He did not remember the registration number of the scooter and stated that the accused was not the owner of the scooter. His statement that he signed the memo at the police station created doubt about the authenticity of the search and seizure process. The appellate court found this testimony to be fatal to the prosecution's case.

3. Ownership and Possession of the Scooter from Which Contraband Was Recovered:
The prosecution's case was that the contraband was recovered from a scooter exclusively in the possession of the accused. However, PW5 Pawan Kumar testified that he sold the scooter to Ravinder Kumar, and the registration certificate remained in his name because the full sale consideration was not paid. This non-registration of the scooter in the accused's name was deemed fatal to the prosecution.

4. Non-Examination of Crucial Witnesses:
The prosecution did not examine the cousin of the accused, who allegedly had possession of the scooter before the contraband was found. PW6 Ravinder Singh stated that he handed over the scooter to the cousin of the accused. The non-examination of this crucial witness was considered fatal to the prosecution's case.

5. Non-Production of the Original Seal Used in the Investigation:
The original seal used to seal the contraband was not produced in court for comparison purposes. PW1 Balvinder Singh, who was handed the seal after use, did not produce it in court. The appellate court held that non-production of the original seal was fatal to the prosecution, citing precedents where conviction could not be recorded without the original seal.

6. Non-Resealing of Parcels Containing Contraband:
The NCB form showed that the resealing process was not conducted by the SHO, and the column for resealing was left blank. This omission was considered fatal to the prosecution, as it indicated a lapse in the chain of custody of the contraband.

7. Recovery of Scooter from a Public Place:
The contraband was recovered from a scooter parked in a public place outside the accused's shop. The prosecution failed to prove that the scooter was in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. The recovery from a public place created doubt about the accused's possession of the contraband.

8. Entire Investigation Conducted by the Complainant Himself:
The entire investigation was conducted by SI Bahadur Singh, the complainant. There was no evidence that the investigation was handed over to an independent investigating officer. The appellate court found that this compromised the fairness of the investigation, causing a miscarriage of justice.

9. Grounds for Acquittal and Principles for Appellate Review of Acquittal:
The appellate court reiterated the principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's finding of acquittal. The appellate court found that the trial court's judgment was not perverse or unsustainable and affirmed the acquittal, citing several precedents supporting this principle.

Conclusion:
The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the State, affirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The court held that the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice. The contraband will be forfeited in favor of the State of Himachal Pradesh in accordance with the law.