Disproportionate Sentence in NDPS Case Modified Based on Principle of Proportionality: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-13

HP High Court Modifies NDPS Sentence, Citing Principle of Proportionality

Shimla, H.P. – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, while upholding the conviction of a man found with 10.50 grams of heroin, has significantly modified his sentence, reducing it from four years to the period already undergone (approximately one year). The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, invoked the "principle of proportionality" to rule that the initial sentence was not justified for the quantity of contraband recovered.

---

Case Background

The appeal was filed by Yashpal Thakur against a judgment from the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, who had convicted him under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The conviction stemmed from a 2021 incident where police, during a routine check of a bus at Shoghi Naka, recovered a packet containing 10.50 grams of heroin and syringes, which Mr. Thakur had allegedly thrown upon seeing the authorities. The trial court sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000.

Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Contentions: The defense, led by Advocate Manoj Pathak, challenged the conviction on several grounds, including:

- Material Contradictions: It was argued that the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly the bus conductor, had significant inconsistencies regarding the number of police officials who boarded the bus and the number of syringes recovered.

- Procedural Lapses: The defense pointed out the non-examination of the bus driver and questioned the integrity of the case property.

- Disproportionate Sentence: As an alternative argument, it was submitted that the four-year sentence was excessively harsh for the quantity of heroin involved.

State's Defense: The Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Prashant Sen, defended the trial court's decision, arguing:

- Minor Discrepancies: Any contradictions in witness testimonies were minor and natural given the three-year gap between the incident and the court statements.

- Credibility of Witnesses: The testimonies of police officials and the independent witness (bus conductor) were consistent on the core facts of the recovery.

- Societal Impact: The State emphasized the severe impact of heroin on society, justifying the strict sentence imposed by the trial court.

High Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Rakesh Kainthla conducted a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments, ultimately upholding the conviction but agreeing with the appellant on the issue of sentencing.

On Conviction: The Court found the prosecution's case to be robust. It dismissed the defense's claims of material contradictions, citing Supreme Court precedents like Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh , which hold that minor discrepancies due to memory lapse over time do not discredit a witness's testimony. The Court noted:

"The number of people who boarded the bus and the number of syringes recovered are the matters of detail which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Hence, his testimony cannot be discarded due to these two contradictions."

The bench also affirmed that the non-examination of the bus driver was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as a prosecutor is not obligated to present repetitive evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that the testimony of police officials cannot be distrusted solely because of their position, and the integrity of the seized contraband was established by the forensic lab report, which confirmed the seals were intact.

On Sentencing: The pivotal part of the judgment was the Court's analysis of the sentence. While acknowledging the seriousness of drug abuse, Justice Kainthla applied the principle of proportionality, a legal doctrine requiring that the punishment must fit the crime. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana , stating that courts must modulate sentences based on the specific facts, nature of the crime, and other attending circumstances.

The Court observed that the commercial quantity for heroin is 250 grams, which can attract a 10-year sentence. In this context, a four-year sentence for approximately 10 grams of heroin was deemed disproportionate. The judgment noted:

"Learned Trial Court did not assign any reason to deviate from the principle of proportionality and applying the principle of proportionality, the sentence of four years is not justified."

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld Yashpal Thakur's conviction under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act but modified the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him (approximately one year). The fine was also reduced from ₹25,000 to ₹10,000, with a default sentence of three months. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that while the guilty are punished, the quantum of punishment remains fair, just, and proportional to the gravity of the offence.