Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(HP) 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Cr. A. No.: 90 of 2004-A. Decided on: 28.05.2013.
State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sangat Ram and another.

For the Appellant :Mr. B.S. Parmar and Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs - Acquittal under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 35 and 54 of the Act - The court discussed the stringent punishment provisions under the Act, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the presumption of guilt from possession of narcotic drugs. The court emphasized the need for a heightened scrutiny test and a higher degree of assurance to convict an accused in cases involving serious offences under the Act. The judgment in Noor Aga Versus State of Punjab and another, (2008) 16 SCC 417 was cited to support the legal principles applied in the decision.
Fact of the Case:

The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of charas from the accused persons during a search conducted by the police.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimonies of independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and discrepancies in the manner of investigation raised doubts about the authenticity of the evidence. The court upheld the judgment of acquittal, emphasizing the need to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, considering the discrepancies in the evidence and the lack of support from independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in cases involving serious offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, a heightened scrutiny test and a higher degree of assurance are necessary to convict an accused. The judgment in Noor Aga Versus State of Punjab and another, (2008) 16 SCC 417 was relied upon to emphasize the stringent provisions and burden of proof on the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld. The personal bonds furnished by the accused persons were cancelled, and surety bonds discharged.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points:
The Act imposes stringent punishment and presumption of guilt from possession, requiring a heightened scrutiny test and higher degree of assurance for conviction. (!)
The independent witnesses (Hans Raj and Aman Nag) turned hostile; their testimony did not support the prosecution’s version of search and seizure. Official witnesses supported the case, but the Court still found overall evidence insufficient for beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!)
Issues include whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt given discrepancies, lack of independent witness support, and questioned conduct of search, consent, and recovery. (!) (!) (!)
The court cited Noor Aga v. State of Punjab to emphasize the need for heightened scrutiny and the burdens of proof under the Act. (!) (!)
The appellate court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal; personal bonds were cancelled and surety bonds discharged. (!)
There were multiple inconsistencies in the documentary chain (Rukka/ FIR timing, NCB-I form entries, sample handling, rapat, presence at the scene). (!) (!) (!)
The defense arguments regarding sequence and location of search, and that independent witnesses were not present at the spot, were considered plausible. (!) (!)
The prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence beyond reasonable doubt based on independent and official witness testimony and documentary evidence. (!) (!)

What is the standard of proof required for conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in cases involving serious offences?

What factors led to the acquittal of the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in this case?

What is the appellate court's conclusion regarding whether evidence from independent witnesses can be disregarded in favor of official witnesses in narcotics cases?

JUDGMENT

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.: The State has come-up in appeal against the judgment dated 1.11.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2003 whereby the respondents, hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused persons’, who have been acquitted from the charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short, framed against each of them.

2.The challenge to the impugned judgment is on the grounds, inter-alia that learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective and recorded the findings qua acquittal of the accused in a perfunctory and slipshod manner and also on flimsy grounds. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses have been discarded without assigning any reason.

3.The present is a case where in the presence of PW-3 Shri Hans Raj and PW-4 Shri Aman Nag and that of police officials, namely, LHC Mast Ram (PW-5) and ASI Ram Sarup (PW-6), PW-9, S.I. Balwant Singh allegedly recovered charas weighing 1 kg. 650 gms. from the accused persons when reached near cinema hall at Sarwari Bazaar, Kullu on 1.11.2002 around 11.00 a.m. Before that consent of the accused persons qua their search by Sub Inspector Balwant Singh aforesaid was obtained. The consent memos Ex.PW-3/A and PW-3/B whereby both the accused allegedly agreed for being searched by PW-9 S.I. Balwant Singh, memos Ex.PW-3/C and Ex.PW-3/D whereby PW-9 Balwant Singh allegedly gave his search first to the accused persons and thereafter searched them, seizure memo Ex.PW-3/E whereby charas weighing 1 kg. 650 gms. was recovered from the bag, accused Sangat Ram carrying on his back and taken into possession, memo Ex.PW-3/F and Ex.PW-3/G whereby both the accused were informed about the nature of the offence they committed and the provision of sentence provided under law for the commission of the said offence, memos Ex.PW-3/H and Ex.PW-3/J qua the personal search of both accused and map of the spot Ex.PW-9/B were prepared on the spot in the presence of the witnesses. It is thereafter rukka Ex.PW-9/A allegedly was prepared on the spot and forwarded to the police station through PW-5 Mast Ram for registration of the case. NCB-I Form Ex.PW-1/C is also claimed to be filled-up on the spot. The Investigating Officer sealed the recovered charas in a parcel with seal ‘B’ and the charas separated for samples in two separate parcels weighing 25-25 gms. each with the same seal. The rest of the documents, that is, extract of malkhana register Ex.PW-2/A, R.C. Ex.PW-2/B, another extract of malkhana register Ex.PW-8/A and special report Ex.PW-8/B were also produced to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence.

4.There are two sets of witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to sustain the charge against accused persons, i.e. PW-3 and PW-4, S/Shri Hans Raj and Aman Nag, independent witnesses, LHC Mast Ram PW-5, ASI Ram Sarup PW-6 and Sub Inspector Balwant Singh, the Investigating Officer, official witnesses. The 3rd set of witnesses examined are PW-1 ASI Karam Singh, the then officiating SHO, Police Station, Kullu, who on the receipt of rukka had recorded the FIR Ex.PW-1/A and with whom allegedly the case property was deposited, PW-2 HC Narain Singh to whom PW-1 had entrusted the case property alongwith NCB-I Form and sample ‘C’ for safe custody in the malkhana and who had forwarded one of the sample parcel to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis alongwith NCB-1 form, PW-7 HC Lal Singh who had deposited the sample parcel in CTL, Kandaghat and PW-8 Constable Kashmi Ram, who had taken Ex.PW-8/B the special report of this case to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kullu.

5.The fact, however, remains that the prosecution case has not all been supported by the so called independent witnesses, S/Shri Hans Raj and Aman Nag and as regards the official witnesses, LHC Mast Ram, ASI Ram Sarup a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(HP) 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.Before (Division Bench)The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.Cr. A. No.: 90 of 2004-A. Decided on: 28.05.2013. State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sangat Ram and another.

What is the standard of proof required for conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in cases involving serious offences?

What factors led to the acquittal of the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in this case?

What is the appellate court's conclusion regarding whether evidence from independent witnesses can be disregarded in favor of official witnesses in narcotics cases?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Cr. A. No.: 90 of 2004-A. Decided on: 28.05.2013.
State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sangat Ram and another.