The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of association of independent witnesses in the proceedings can raise doubts about the validity of the prosecution's case.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Both these appeals arise from a common judgment hence are being disposed of by a common judgment. The aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment, rendered on 24.05.2012 by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2010, whereby appellant/accused Anil Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for his having committed offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein-after referred to as ‘NDPS Act’). In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Whereas, accused/appellant Bhupender Chauhan has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for his having committed offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2010 at 6.00 PM, a police party consisting of SI Krishan Chand, LHC Hans Raj and C. Sohan Lal, PW-1 of PP, Sainj in Vehicle Tata Sumo No. HP-01K- 2095 driven by C. Bhushan Kumar proceeded towards Bihali, Lajri, Chor Nallah for patrolling vide rapat Ext. PW6/A. At about 7.15 P.M when the police party was present at Chor Nallah, the accused (Anil Kumar) was noticed coming from Banjar Side and on sighting the police party, he turned back and tried to escape, but he was nabbed on suspicion by the police. Name and address of the accused were ascertained. The site of occurrence was isolated, therefore, the investigating officer associated C. Sohan Lal and LHC Hans Raj as witnesses in the proceedings relating to search, seizure and recovery. SI Krishan Chand apprised accused Anil Kumar that he was possessing some narcotic substance and asked for his option qua search either before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, upon which he consented to give search to the police. The Investigating Officer gave his personal search to accused Anil Kumar vide memo Ex.PW1/A but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted search of the dark-green rucksack, upon which word ‘SOVERS’ was written, which was found containing a shirt with sticker ZX and trousers with sticker “KHAN NEAR GAUSHALA SONIPAT”. The Investigating Officer also found one khaki carry bag in the rucksack upon which words “Raja Garments” were inscribed. On opening the khakhi carry bag two packets were found kept therein and in one packet charas in the shape of marble, sticks and pancake was found and in other packet opium in liquid form was found. The charas on weighment was found to be 4 Kg, 800 grams and opium was found to be 300 grams. The Investigating Officer packed the charas and the opium so recovered in the same manner and put the same in separate parcels and the shirt and trousers were also packed in separate parcel. All the three parcels were sealed with seal “H” at three places and sample of seal “H” was prepared. The NCB forms in triplicate Ex.PW10/D were filled by the Investigating Officer. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D and copy of the seizure memo was supplied to the accused free of costs. The Investigating Officer prepared ruqua Ex.PW14/A and the same was sent to Police Station, Banjar through PW-1 C. Sohan Lal for registration of FIR. PW-13, SI Surender Pathak on receipt of ruqua registered FIR Ex.PW13/A, and made endorsement. The Investigating Officer thereafter prepared spot map Ex.PW14/B and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their versions. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/E. On receipt of the case file, the IO filled FIR number in the documents. Thereafter, the Investigating Office