Significant unexplained contradictions in the statements of official witnesses may lead to the accused being given the benefit of the doubt, even when an independent witness turns hostile.

Deepak Gupta, J.

This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 14.8.2007 delivered by learned Special Judge( Fast Track Court), Solan in Case No. 4 FTC/7 of 2007, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’).

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 13.4.2006, PW-9 ASI Ram Chand alongwith other police officials and independent witness PW-2 Chand Kishore was on patrolling duty near Grownghatti. The police officials saw the accused holding a pink colour polythene bag in his right hand. The accused was going towards Gamberpul. On seeing the police party, the accused got perplexed and tried to run away. This aroused the suspicion of the police officials who apprehended the accused and the bag carried by him was searched by PW-9 Ram Chand. It was found to contain another white coloured polythene bag inside which there was charas. According to the prosecution in the presence of the independent witness Chand Kishore the charas was weighed and on weighment the charas was found 700 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. Thereafter the two samples and the remaining bulk charas were packed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal “A” on the spot. Then the charas was taken into possession in the presence of Chand Kishore who signed the recovery memo alongwith PW-1 Head Constable Ranjit Singh. The sample seal impression was taken separately and the seal was handed over to the independent witness Chand Kishore. Thereafter the accused was arrested. Other codal formalities were completed on the spot. The accused alongwith the three parcels containing the charas alongwith NCB forms and sample seal impression “A” were produced in the Police Station before PW-11 SHO Narain Singh, who resealed the parcel with seal “S” and separate impression of the seal was also taken. Thereafter the case property alongwith NCB forms was deposited in the malkhana with PW-7 MHC Jai Singh. Rukka as well as special report in compliance with the provisions of the Act was sent to the concerned Police Officer. FIR Ex. PW-11/A was registered on the basis of the rukka. One sample was sent to the Chemical Analyst through PW-3 Deep Ram. The Chemical Analyst vide his report Ex.PW-9/G opined that the sample was of charas and on this basis the accused was charged for having committed aforesaid offence.

3. After trial the accused has been acquitted vide impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the independent witness has turned hostile and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and therefore, no reliance on the same can be placed.

4. As far as the independent witness PW-2 Chand Kishore is concerned, he has not at all supported the prosecution case. According to him, he runs a tea stall just outside Police Station, Dharampur and when he had gone to deliver tea to the officials in the Police Station, he was shown some charas and told that it had been recovered by the police and thereafter he was asked by the police officials to sign certain documents. Though, this witness has admitted his signature on the documents keeping in view the fact that he runs a shop just outside the Police Station, his explanation that he signed the documents in the Police Station at the behest of the police officials cannot be brushed aside lightly.

5. The law in this regard is well settled. Even when independent witness turned hostile, the Court can rely upon the statements of the official witnesses to convict the accused. However, there is an important caveat. The statements of the official witnesses should be consistent and should also inspire confidence. In case, there are contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and there is no explanation for the contradictions, then the accused has to be given benefit the of doubt.

6. In the present cas