9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they were found in conscious possession of poppy straw having the quantity of 205 kilograms without any licence or permit. The accused, including the appellant, were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The default sentence was of imprisonment for two years. The conviction of the appellant and two others has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. 2. On 22nd May, 2001, Assistant Sub-Inspector Dhian Singh (PW-10), along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty in Ambala Cantonment. They received secret information in the afternoon that three parcels on platform No. 4 and two on platform No. 6 of Ambala Cantonment station contained contraband. The des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that though the contraband was recovered during transit, the persons possessing railway receipt of the parcels shall be deemed to have control over the contraband and, thus, in conscious possession thereof. The High Court has confirmed the conviction. Submissions 3. The submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that he is a rickshaw puller like the accused No. 2. According to the appellant, accused No. 2 had gone to enquire about the arrival of parcels on behalf of the owner to the railway station, and when he failed to return, the appellant went to the railway station to enquire about him. His submission is that even the railway receipt of the parcels was not produced by the appellant but by the accused No. 2. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cel booking). He enquired about the arrival of the parcels. He stated that as per the instructions of the police, he told accused No. 2 to sit and wait. After that, the appellant came there and enquired about the same parcels. He has not stated that the appellant either showed or produced the railway receipt. In fact, according to his version, the railway receipt was with accused No. 2. In the cross-examination, he was confronted with the suggestion that the appellant was plying a rickshaw. He responded by stating that he was unable to deny the suggestion. However, he volunteered and stated that the appellant had been doing business in selling bed sheets, etc., on his bicycle. PW-10, Dhian Singh stated that the accused No. 2 came to the rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case and on seeing us apprehended owner fled from the spot. I am poor and is meeting two times meals with great difficulty." 8. We have carefully perused the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The circumstance against the appellant that he visited the railway station and enquired with the station supervisor about the contraband parcels has not been put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Question No. 6 asked to the appellant reads thus : "Q.6 That on 28-5-2001, Ram Phal Inspector took the investigation of this case in his hand. He also alongwith other police officials went to Railway Station, Kurali, in Punjab and contacted Station Supervisor, Krishan Dutt Joshi there. Meanwhile, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C., we may refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC online SC 609]. In Paragraph 17, this Court has summarised the law on the aspect which reads thus : "17. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be summarised as under : (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction; (ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just to subject the appellant to further examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. at this stage, nearly twenty-two and half years from the date of the alleged recovery of the contraband. As the only material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution against the appellant were not put to him, a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant's defence. Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned. According to us, it is a serious and material illegality committed by the Court as the examination of the appellant was not made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
