IMPORTANT POINT
In view of discrepancies in prosecution case and contradictions in statements by prosecution witnesses the accused cannot be convicted.

JUDGMENT

N.V. Ramana, J.

These appeals are filed by the State having aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, allowing the Criminal Appeals filed by the accused-respondents herein against their conviction passed by the trial Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "the N.D.P.S. Act"). By the said order, the High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused- respondents herein.

2. In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts as emerged from the prosecution case need to be noted at the outset. On 10th July, 2004, Anjani Kumar, Inspector, CID, Shimla (PW12), upon receiving a secret information that some people are pursuing the unlawful business of charas, proceeded towards Panarsa Bridge along with ASI Gian Chand (PW 9) and Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW 8) and some other police personnel. Amar Chand (PW 1) and Kuldeep Kumar (PW 2) who were going on that route at that time, also joined them as witnesses. At around 11.30 p.m. in the night, the accused-respondents herein arrived at that place carrying with them three gunny bags of contraband (Charas) and upon seeing police, they tried to run away. Police overpowered the accused and seized the contraband from their possession, prepared samples, sealed and marked them and registered the case. After investigation, charges were framed against the accused and upon their denial, the case was committed for trial.

3. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of L 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two years.

4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused filed appeals before the High Court and the High Court after analyzing the evidence allowed their appeals and set aside the conviction. Dissatisfied with the acquittal order passed by the High Court, the State is in appeal before us.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant - State of Himachal Pradesh and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well, and carefully gone through the material on record.

6. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the State that while dealing with the appeals of the accused, the High Court has given greater importance to trivial discrepancies in the prosecution case. Ignoring the cogent evidence advanced by official witnesses, the High Court simply held that there were material contradictions in their depositions and without assigning any plausible reason allowed the appeals of the accused and thereby committed an error of law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents, however, supported the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused.

8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and after going through the material available on record, we notice the following discrepancies in the prosecution case, which in our considered opinion, bear greater importance in dealing with the case on hand :

 (i) The evidence of Tulsi Ram (DW 2) makes it clear that on the day of incident i.e. 10-7-2004, when he was going to his house through Panarsa Bridge at about 4/5 p.m., police officials met him on the way near Panarsa Bridge. They asked him to load three gunny bags lying outside an abandoned house, into the vehicle. Accordingly he carried two gunny bags while one bag was carried by the police officials and loaded them in the vehicle. He has also deposed that the police officials told him that the bags contained contraband material 'charas' and the same was recovered from the abandoned house.

 (ii) PW 1 (Amar Chand) and PW 2 (Kuldip Kumar) who were said to be the independent witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution. T