Acquittal in NDPS Case Upheld Due to Contradictory Police Testimonies & Failure to Join Independent Witnesses: Himachal Pradesh High Court

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case, Cites 'Material Contradictions' in Police Witness Testimonies

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of a man accused of possessing commercial quantities of cannabis and opium. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the prosecution's case to be riddled with "material contradictions" and procedural lapses, primarily the failure to associate independent witnesses.

The court emphasized that while police testimony can be sufficient for a conviction, it must be reliable and trustworthy. In this instance, glaring inconsistencies in the statements of official witnesses rendered the prosecution's narrative highly doubtful.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to March 3, 2013, when a police patrol team claimed to have apprehended Ram Singh at Khalut Mod in Mandi district. According to the prosecution, Singh, who was carrying a rucksack, attempted to flee upon seeing the police. A subsequent search of his bag allegedly led to the recovery of 3.250 kg of cannabis (charas) and 100 grams of opium.

Consequently, Singh was charged under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. However, on March 21, 2015, the Special Judge (II), Mandi, acquitted him of all charges. The State of Himachal Pradesh then challenged this acquittal in the High Court.

---

Arguments in the High Court

The state, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that the trial court had wrongly discarded the testimonies of police officials and given undue weight to minor contradictions. It was contended that in the absence of any proven enmity, the statements of the official witnesses should have been accepted.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondent, Ram Singh, maintained that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that its judgment was sound in both fact and law, warranting no interference.

---

Court's Scrutiny Reveals Glaring Discrepancies

The High Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, particularly the testimonies of the police witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, ASI Jeet Singh. The Bench noted several critical contradictions that undermined the prosecution's case:

• Sending of Rukka (Memo): There were conflicting accounts of how the initial police memo was sent to the police station. One witness claimed it was taken on foot and the messenger returned on a bike, another stated a police vehicle was used, while the Investigating Officer deposed that a private vehicle was involved. The court noted this "creates a serious doubt about sending of rukka from the spot and preparation of the documents at the spot."
• Presence of a Camera: Some police witnesses testified that a camera was available with the team, but the Investigating Officer denied it. No photographs of the scene were taken.
• Location of Proceedings: Witnesses gave differing accounts of where the paperwork was completed—some said inside the police vehicle, while the Investigating Officer claimed it was done on the vehicle's bonnet using a searchlight.
• Passing Vehicles: One witness stated no vehicles passed the spot during the proceedings, whereas the Investigating Officer admitted that 2-3 vehicles crossed and were checked by the team.

Failure to Join Independent Witnesses Called 'Fatal'

A crucial point highlighted by the court was the complete absence of independent, non-police witnesses during the search and seizure. The Investigating Officer admitted in his cross-examination that the spot was on a state highway with frequent traffic and that nearby village Naun had residents, including Panchayat members, who could have been called.

The judgment stated, "The Investigating Officer had not taken any steps for calling any independent witness from village Noun... non-joining of independent witnesses despite their availability is fatal to the case of prosecution."

---

Final Verdict: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof

In its concluding remarks, the High Court reaffirmed the well-settled legal principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn an acquittal, especially if the trial court's view is a "possible view."

Citing the Supreme Court's observation that "suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof," the Bench held:

"We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused... is a reasonable view based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record."

The High Court dismissed the state's appeal, thereby confirming Ram Singh's acquittal and discharging his bail bonds.