Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol and P.S. Rana, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Pardeep Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.290 of 2008
Decided On : February 28, 2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant :Mr. B.S. Parmar Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General
For the respondent:Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate
The judgment emphasizes the fundamental legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' and highlights the importance of credible evidence and procedural adherence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Acquittal based on lack of evidence - Sections 22, 27, 29, 32, 42, 50 - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of capsules from the accused, and the testimonies of key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The non-production of original seal for comparison, the entire investigation conducted by the complainant, and the non-showing of capsules to the Investigating Officer and Drug Inspector in court were fatal to the prosecution. The judgment of acquittal was upheld by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused was found in possession of 432 capsules of spasmo proxyvon, but key witnesses denied the recovery and other crucial details. The accused claimed innocence and denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of key witnesses contradicted the prosecution's case, and several procedural irregularities were noted, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the recovery of capsules from the accused, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the procedural conduct of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and procedural irregularities led to the acquittal of the accused. The principles of legal proof and the presumption of innocence favored the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State of HP was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was affirmed. The court found no miscarriage of justice and upheld the decision to acquit the accused.
P.S. Rana, J.
Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamsala in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007 titled State of H.P. Vs. Pardeep Kumar.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 24.9.2006 at about 6 PM when police officials Police Station Dharamshala were on patrolling duty at place Sukkar they intercepted scooter No. HPK-6101 driven by accused and after conducting search of scooter 432 capsules of spasmo proxyvon were found. It is alleged by prosecution that sample of capsules took and thereafter sample parcels and remaining bulk quantity were sealed in parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that rukka Ext PW8/E was sent to Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext PW8/F was registered. It is alleged by prosecution that on the receipt of rukka rapat No.10 was also recorded. It is alleged by prosecution that site plan Ext PW12/D was prepared at the spot by Investigating Officer. It is alleged by prosecution that NCB form Ext PW12/B was prepared in triplicate. It is alleged by prosecution that sample was again resealed in police station by Incharge Police Station Dharamshala. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter sample was sent for chemical analysis to FSL Junga and thereafter report Ext.PA was received. It is alleged by prosecution that scooter was also impounded. Charge was framed against the accused on dated 17.7.2007 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case.
Sr. No.
Name of Witness
PW1
Rajesh Sharma
PW2
Rakesh Kumar
PW3
Subhash Chand
PW4
Shiv Kumar
PW5
Subhash Chand
PW6
Anil Kumar
PW7
Kartar Singh
PW8
Om Parkash
PW9
R.P.Jaswal
PW10
Kapil Dev
PW11
Navneet Marwaha
PW12
Vinod Kumar
4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:-
Sr. No.
Description.
Ext PW1/A
Arrest memo
Ext PW1/B
Seizure memo
Ext PW3/A
Copy of special report
Ext PW3/B
Copy of register of NDPS
Ext PW6/A Ext PW6/B
Copy of malkhana register
Ext PW6/C
Road certificate
Ext PW6/D
Copy of road certificate
Ext PW8/B
Sample of seal
Ext PW8/E
Rukka
Ext PW8/F
FIR
Ext PW12/A
Rapat No.l0
Ext PW12/B
NCB Form
Ext PW12/C
Sample of seal
Ext PW12/D
Site plan
Ext PW12/E
Statement of Rajesh Sharma
Ext PW12/F
Statement of Kapil Dev
Ext PA
FSL Report
5. Statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused has stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused.
6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamshala appellant-State filed present appeal.
7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused entire record carefully.
8. Point for determination in the present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as alleged in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION:
9. PW1 Rajesh Sharma has stated that on dated 24.9.2006 he along with Kapil Dev were proceeding on scoo
