2020 Supreme(SC) 628

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Rajesh Dhiman - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2013
With
Gulshan Rana - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2019
Decided On : 26-10-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) NDPS offences – Complainant can also be investigating officer.
(2) Non-examination of independent witnesses would not ipso facto entitle one to seek acquittal.
(3) Reasonable doubt does not mean that proof be so clear that no possibility of error exists. Evidence must only be so conclusive that all reasonable doubts are removed from mind of an ordinary person.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 read with Section 50 – Seizure of Charas – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Complainant was also investigating officer – It is necessary to demonstrate that there has either been actual bias or there is real likelihood of bias, with no sweeping presumption being permissible – No reason to draw any adverse inference against complainant himself investigating his complaint – Appellants have at no stage claimed that there existed any enmity or other motive for police to falsely implicate them and let real culprits walk free – Such a huge quantity of Charas could not have been planted against appellants by police on its own – Appellants have miserably failed to make out a case where two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record – Appellants effectively have ended up admitting that they were present on spot; some interaction with police had indeed taken place; that there was sufficient cause to stop vehicle, and that such search was based not on any prior information but was spontaneous and, it was a case of chance recovery – Non-examination of independent witnesses would not ipso facto entitle one to seek acquittal – Though a heighted standard of care is imposed on court in such instances but there is nothing to suggest that High Court was not cognizant of this duty – High Court has rightly relied upon testimonies of government officials having found them to be impeccable after detailed reappreciation of entire evidence – Bo reason to disagree with such finding(s) – Safeguards for search of a person would not extend to his bag or other article being carried by them – There arises no need to examine compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act – High Courts are well within their power to reverse an acquittal and award an appropriate sentence – Trial Court appreciated facts in a mechanical manner and dismissed prosecution case based on a misinterpretation of law, particularly qua satisfying burden of proof – There were more than enough reasons for High Court to interfere with acquittal and arrive at a different finding – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Expression “reasonable doubt” is a well-defined connotation – It refers to degree of certainty required of a court before it can make a legally valid determination of guilt of an accused – These words are inbuilt measures to ensure that innocence is to be presumed unless court finds no reasonable doubt of guilt of person charged – Reasonable doubt does not mean that proof be so clear that no possibility of error exists – Evidence must only be so conclusive that all reasonable doubts are removed from mind of an ordinary person – To entitle an accused person to benefit of a doubt arising from possibility of a duality of views, possible view in favour of accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. (Paras 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Present Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 28.08.2012, by which the appellants’ acquittal under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was reversed and a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,00,000 each was awarded.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court appreciated facts in a mechanical manner and dismissed the prosecution case based on a misinterpretation of law, particularly qua satisfying the burden of proof. Hence, there were more than enough reasons for High Court to interfere with the acquittal and arrive at a different finding.

Result : Appeals dismissed.