IMPORTANT POINT
Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination not necessarily fatal to prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the charge of commission of offences under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). The Judgment of acquittal by the High Court is in reversal of the conviction recorded by learned trial court which had imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and fine of Rs.1,50,000/- on each of the accused. On default of payment of the fine amount, it was ordered by the learned trial Court that the accused-respondents will suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 27-1-2009 at about 6.30 p.m. while a police party was on patrolling duty on National Highway 21 on the Manali- Kullu road, a white colour Indica car was signaled to stop. According to the prosecution, the vehicle stopped at a distance of about 25 feet away from the police party. One person is alleged to fled away from the car and the accused No.1 was found sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle whereas the accused No.2 was found sitting in driver's seat. The prosecution further alleges that the accused Nos.1 and 2 disclosed their names and had further stated that the person who fled away is one Rajbir Singh. It is the further case of the prosecution that prior to search of the vehicle, police constables were sent to bring local witnesses but they did not succeed in bringing any witnesses as on account of the severe cold on the date of occurrence, no independent person was available. Thereafter, a search of the car was conducted by the police party and a rucksack was found lying near the legs of accused No.2 which was found to contain cannabis mixture weighing about 18.85 kgs. According to the prosecution two samples of about 25 grams each were taken from the contraband recovered and the samples were separated and sealed. Both the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and on the next day accused No.3 was also arrested. During interrogation, the accused persons had named one Jeewan Lal as the person from whom they had purchased the contraband. The house of Jeewan Lal was searched on 29.11.2009 and an electronic weighing machine, envelopes containing small particles of cannabis and other such materials were recovered. Accordingly, Jeewan Lal (accused No.4) was arrested. Charges were framed against all the four accused who were sent for trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court while convicting and sentencing the accused Nos.1 and 2, as aforesaid, acquitted the other accused Nos.3 and 4.

4. Aggrieved, the accused-respondents had filed appeals before the High Court.

5. The High Court, as it appears from the impugned judgment, took the view that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of examining independent witnesses in support of its case inasmuch as there was a bazaar situated at a distance of about 100 meters and further the place where the contraband was allegedly detected and seized was on the Manali-Kullu Road which is a busy road with many buses and vehicles plying on the same. The High Court also took the view that the contraband article was produced before the learned trial court in a torn condition which raised serious doubts as to its origin and authenticity. On the basis of the aforesaid twin findings, the appeal was allowed and the order of conviction of the accused-respondents was reversed.

6. We have considered the matter and have heard the learned counsels for the parties. So far as examination of independent witnesses in support of the prosecution case is concerned all that would be necessary to say in this regard is that examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, according to