Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the case of the prosecution can’t be rejected just because an independent witness associated with a drugs case was not examined during trial.
“Independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not requirement of law. It is no where provided in any statute that independent corroboration is a must and in absence thereof, the case of the prosecution is to be rejected outrightly. ....non-examination of the independent witness does not make any difference,” the bench of justice HS Madaan observed while dismissing a plea in a drugs seizure case of August 2004.
The FIR was registered in Moga in 2004 and the convict was sentenced to 10 years jail in 2007. Police had recovered four gunny bags, each weighing 30kg and carrying poppy straw, from the convict. The petitioner had challenged the conviction on various grounds, arguing that that there were many flaws and lapses in the case of prosecution, which could not be explained satisfactorily, during trial but still he was convicted. He had argued that an independent witness was not examined by the prosecution, which creates a doubt over veracity of the prosecution story.
The court observed that the appellant for a pecuniary benefit opted to play with lives and health of people of the area by making them addicted to drugs. “Drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of our society and led youth to wrongful path. Such persons need to be dealt with firmly and sternly and no sympathy can be shown to them as it would prove counter-productive and result in increased drug trafficking,” the bench said, rejecting even the plea to reconsider the sentence awarded to him.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the appellant for a pecuniary benefit opted to play with lives and health of people of the area by making them addicted to drugs. “Drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of our society and led youth to wrongful path. Such persons need to be dealt with firmly and sternly and no sympathy can be shown to them as it would prove counter-productive and result in increased drug trafficking,” the bench said, rejecting even the plea to reconsider the sentence awarded to him.
{{/usCountry}}To the argument raised by the petitioner that seal of the consignment after use was not handed over to the independent witness, thus leading to suspicious circumstances, the court, said that there is no provision of law that seal after use must be handed over to independent witness. “The independent witness may or may not be available during all searches and seizures and it depends upon circumstances of each case. Here non-handing over of seal by the investigating officer to any independent witness does not create any suspicious circumstance,” the bench recorded.
The bench observed that trial court, by proper analysis of the evidence and correct application of law in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to a conclusion that the accused was found in possession of the 121kg poppy straw. “The recovery involved in this case is on high side, ruling out the possibility of planting it on accused, and that too without any rhyme or reason,” the bench said dismissing the appeal.