JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. These are two appeals by the two appellants – Shish Ram and Duli Chand. They were alleged to be in possession of 30 kgs. of opium. They have been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac each. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, they have separately filed these two appeals.
2. The prosecution story was initially disclosed by Dharam Singh, SHO, Police Station, Loharu in the message sent by him on July 29, 1990. In a nut shell, he had reported that a police party which included him, ASI Anoop Singh, 3 Head Constables, 6 Constables and a Driver were going on a police patrol. When they were in the area of village Sehar, they saw two persons coming on a motorcycle on a kacha path. On seeing the police party, the two persons hesitated. They were frightened. On account of suspicion, they were asked to stop. Out of the two, “a young person having swarthy complexion, stout body, height about 5′ x 7′, aged about 27/28 years was holding a Thela (bag) tanidar with strings lying in the middle of seat of the motorcycle …….. …….” He “slipped away towards the kacha passage leading to village Sehra”. He was chased but he managed to escape. The other person disclosed his name as Duli Chand (one of the appellants). He gave his address. He was served with a notice indicating that he was suspected to be in possession of opium, ganja or charas. The police party proposed to search him. He was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Duli Chand had voluntarily stated that he was willing to be searched by the SHO. On search, opium weighting 30 kgs. was recovered. A sample of 100 gms. was separated. After sealing the material, separate memos were prepared and the opium was taken into possession. The specimen of the seal was retained. While the opium was being weighed, even Duli Chand managed to escape.
3. On the basis of this report, the First Information Report, Ex. PF/1 was recorded on the same day viz. July 29, 1990. The matter was investigated. On July 31, 1990, both the appellants were arrested. They were prosecuted. After examination of the evidence, the trial Court found that the charge as levelled by the prosecution has been duly proved. Thus, the judgment under appeal was passed.
4. Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, learned counsel for the appellants has made a twofold submission. Firstly, it has been contended by the counsel that the evidence on record is not worthy of credence. It does not prove the charge levelled against the appellants. There is no independent evidence which may persuade the court to hold that the appellants are guilty of the charge levelled against them. Secondly, it has been contended that there is nothing on record to show that Shish Ram was even remotely connected with the case. The counsel maintains that at least Shish Ram has been falsely implicated.
5. The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, learned counsel for the State of Haryana.
6. On a perusal of the record, we find that on July 29, 1990, a notice was served by Dharam Singh, SHO, Police Station, Loharu on Duli Chand. This notice is Ex. PD on record. By this notice, the police officer had informed the appellant that he suspected him to be in possession of “opium, ganja or charas ……” He wanted to search him. He asked him if he “wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a nearby Magistrate ……..” This notice is signed by Duli Chand in token of his having received it. Not only that. The statement given by Duli Chand was also recorded. It is Ex. PD/1. Duli Chand had stated as under :-
“I do not want to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate”.
7. Both the documents viz. Exhibits PD and PD/1 bear the date July 29, 1990. It is, thus, clear that on July 29, 1990, Duli Chand had been apprehended and his statement was duly recorded. Still further, a recovery memo was also prepared. It is Ex. PE. Opium weighing 30 kgs. was recovered from Duli Chand. This memorandum is also signed by the Station House Officer, Dharam Singh who had served the notice Ex. PD on the appellant. Raj Kumar, Head Constable is also a signatory to all the three documents. These three documents clearly prove the recovery of 30 kgs. of the material from Duli Chand. A sample out of it was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report dated May 23, 1992 was received. It is Ex. PH. It was found that the sample contained morphine and the material was ‘opium’.
8. Besides the two documents which bear the signatures of appellant-Duli Chand, there is the oral testimony produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel has referred to the statements of Anoop Singh (PW 6) and Sub Inspector Dharam Singh, SHO (PW 7). Both the witnesses have categorically stated that they had apprehended Duli Chand along with another person who was Shish Ram, the second appellant. The sequence of events has been completely given by them. Their statements corroborate the initial report which had been sent by Dharam Singh vide Ex. PF. On an examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that 30 kgs. of opium was recovered on July 29, 1990 and that appellant-Duli Chand was the person who was apprehended at that time. The other person had escaped.
9. Mr. Dinarpur contended that there is no evidence to show that Shish Ram was in any way connected with the offence. Is it so ?
10. Admittedly, in the report at Ex. PF, It has been categorically mentioned that a “young person having swarthy complexion, stout body, height about 5′ x 7′ aged about 27/28 years was holding ………. a bag …….” It is not disputed that this description would match with the factual position regarding Shish Pal. Not only that. We also find that ASI Anoop Singh and Sub-Inspector Dharam Singh, PWs 6 and 7 respectively have categorically stated that Shish Ram was the person who had escaped on July 29, 1990. We find no reason to doubt the correctness of their statements.
11. Mr. Dinarpur contended that there is no independent evidence inculpating the present appellants.
12. It is undoubtedly correct that a charge under Narcotic Drugs and Psyehotropic Substances Act, 1985 is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is an imprisonment of 10 years. It also carries the liability to pay a fine of a substantial amount of one lac. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. In the present case, the two documents viz. Ex. PD and Ex. PD/1 which bear the signatures of appellant-Duli Chand belie any suggestion of doubt regarding the apprehension of the appellants and the recovery of a substantial quantity of 30 kgs. of opium. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would lead to failure of justice if the appellants were let off merely because no independent witness has been produced. We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places at all times. This would be more particular. So in case of sandy terrain of Loharu. It also deserves notice that both the appellants belong to the State of Rajasthan. There is no suggestion that any of the police officers had any cause for grievance against them. There was not even a remote suggestion of any kind of grouse. Thus, there was no change of a false implication.
13. No other point has been raised.
14. We find no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed.
15. Appeal dismissed.