Appeal Against Acquittal Under S.304 IPC & S.21 NDPS Act Dismissed; HP High Court Cites Contradictory Evidence and 'Double Presumption of Innocence' - 2025-09-28

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in Drug Overdose Death Case, Citing 'Fatal Contradictions' in Prosecution Story

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of four individuals accused in the 2014 death of a young man from a heroin overdose, citing significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja dismissed the State's appeal, reaffirming the "double presumption of innocence" that an accused enjoys after being acquitted by a trial court.

The judgment, delivered on September 22, 2025, brings a close to the case against Satnam Singh, his wife Bhupinder Kaur, and their two sons, Sunny and Baba, who were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Una, in 2016.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case originated from a complaint filed on May 23, 2014, by Pargat Singh, the father of the deceased, Arju Rana. According to the FIR, Pargat Singh alleged that on May 21, 2014, his son was found unconscious at the house of the accused. He claimed the accused admitted to administering a heroin injection to Arju and that he subsequently died after being rushed to the hospital. A postmortem report confirmed the cause of death as morphine poisoning.

The accused were charged under Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 21 of the NDPS Act. After examining 19 prosecution witnesses, the trial court in Una acquitted all four accused on December 27, 2016, prompting the State to file the present appeal.

Arguments in the High Court

The State, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Yashwardhan Chauhan, argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that its judgment was based on "surmises and conjectures."

Conversely, the defense counsels, Vinod Thakur and Sanjeev Kumar Suri, contended that the trial court's decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough analysis of the evidence on record, warranting no interference.

Court's Scrutiny Reveals Glaring Inconsistencies

The High Court meticulously re-examined the evidence and highlighted several critical flaws and contradictions in the prosecution's narrative that weakened its case.

Contradictory Statements by Complainant

The most significant inconsistency noted by the Court was the "complete somersault" taken by the complainant, Pargat Singh (PW-3). The Court pointed to a police report (Rapat No. 38A) recorded on May 21, 2014—the day of the incident and two days before the FIR was filed. In his initial statement for this report, Pargat Singh had stated that his son was a drug addict and had consumed smack, explicitly stating he did not want any police action.

However, in the FIR lodged on May 23, he claimed his son had no bad habits and was deliberately injected with heroin by the accused. The Court observed:

"Thus, the version of the complainant, as recorded in FIR... is totally contrary and the same is neither reliable nor trustworthy."

Lack of Corroborative Evidence

The Court also pointed out other evidentiary gaps: * Hostile Witness: The key witness, Navdeep @ Laddi (PW-14), who allegedly told the victim's sister he saw the deceased with the accused, turned hostile and denied seeing the deceased on that day. * Failure to Examine Key Witness: The victim's wife, Puja, who accompanied him to the hospital and told the doctor he had consumed a "white powder," was never examined by the prosecution. The Court held that an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for this omission. * No Independent Witnesses: Despite the accused's house being in a populated area, the police failed to examine any independent witnesses from the locality to corroborate the claim that the deceased was found there. * Medical Evidence: The medico-legal certificate did not mention that the deceased's clothes were wet, contradicting the complainant's claim that the accused were pouring water on his son's head when he arrived.

Reaffirming Principles of Acquittal Appeals

The bench extensively cited Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing the high threshold for overturning an acquittal. The judgment reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere if the trial court's view is a "possible view," even if another view is also plausible. The Court's role is not to substitute its own judgment but to determine if the trial court's findings were "palpably wrong" or "perverse."

The Court concluded:

"In view of the entire evidence on record, it has become clear that there is nothing on record, which could, even remotely, establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond the scope of reasonable doubt."

Final Decision

Finding the trial court's judgment to be the "only possible view" based on the flawed evidence presented, the High Court dismissed the state's appeal. The acquittal of Satnam Singh, Bhupinder Kaur, Sunny, and Baba stands confirmed, and their bail bonds have been discharged.