The court emphasized that a conviction based solely on solitary witness testimony is valid only if the evidence is entirely reliable; otherwise, corroboration is needed, particularly if identification occurs after a significant time without prior recognition.

ORDER

1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict who was charged and put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act, 1985”) in th Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No.150/2004.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was driving a white coloured Maruti Suzuki car bearing No.DL-6C-3737 and in the said car, contraband in the form of poppy straw weighing 233 grams was clandestinely stored in seven gunny bags.

3. The officials had a specific information that the vehicle was to pass by and, accordingly, they kept a close vigil.

4. On 20.02.2004, the vehicle was intercepted.

5. At the relevant point of time, as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was on the wheels and he managed somehow to make good his escape. It is the case of the prosecution that the police officials did try to chase him, however, they were unable to catch hold of the appellant.

6. After the contraband was recovered from the vehicle, the necessary mandatory procedures were undertaken. After a period of six months from the date of seizure of the contraband, the appellant came to be arrested. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant for the alleged offence.

7. The Trial Court examined in all seven witnesses.

8. At the end of the trial, the appellant was held guilty of the alleged offence and was sentenced to undergo ten (10) years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

9. The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court went in appeal before the High Court.

10. The Criminal Appeal No.1146/2006 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022.

11. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before us with the present appeal.

12. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- convict and Ms. Sabarni Som, the learned counsel appearing for the State.

13. We take notice of the fact that the entire conviction of the appellant is based on the oral testimony of PW-6.

14. PW-6 namely, Som Nath, at the relevant point of time was serving as an ASI DETC staff, Sirsa. He deposed before the Trial Court that on the date of seizure and recovery of contraband, he was one of the members of the raiding staff.

15. According to PW-6, he saw the person on wheels getting out of the car and running away.

16. It is also his case that he alongwith other officials ran behind him to catch hold of him but somehow that person managed to escape.

17. After a period of about six (06) months from 20.02.2004, i.e., the date of the seizure, the present appellant was arrested in connection with the alleged crime.

18. It is for the first time after a period of almost one year and six months from the date of seizure that PW-6 identified the appellant before the Trial Court to be that person who was driving the vehicle and who could manage to run away.

19. Based on this evidence of identification by PW-6, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty.

20. The High Court also accepted the oral testimony of PW-6 and thought fit to affirm the judgment and order of conviction.

21. We looked into the Examination-in-Chief of the PW-6 as well as his cross-examination.

22. The oral testimony of PW-6 reads thus:

“Examination in Chief: On 22.2.2004, I was posted as ASI/Incharge, Police Post, Goriwala. O