The judgment established the principle of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and emphasized the need for clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Sanjay Karol, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 27.09.2008, passed by Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2006, titled as State v. Balak Ram, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.11.2005, police party comprising of SI Ram Karan (PW.8), Rajender Singh (not examined), Dalip Kumar (PW.6) and Om Chand (PW.7) had set up a Naka at Fagu-Pul. Police party had left Police Station, Banjar in a Government vehicle. At about 9.00 PM, accused, who was coming from the jungle side, seeing the police party threw a rucksack and fled away. However, after some time he was apprehended. From the bag, charas in the shape of chapattis and sticks weighing 850 grams, was recovered. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and samples as also bulk parcel were sealed with seal having impression ‘T’ and taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PN). NCB form (Ex.PO) was filled up. Rukka (Ex.PP) was carried by Constable Dalip Kumar (PW.6) to Police Station, Banjar, on the basis of which ASI Mathuru Ram (PW.4) registered FIR No.117 of 2005, dated 23.11.2005 (Ex.PE), under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) against the accused. With the file being taken back to the spot, formalities were completed. SI Ram Karan deposited the case property with MHC Chaman Lal (PW.5), who sent the sample for chemical analysis through Mast Ram (PW.2) to CTL, Kandaghat, report (Ex.PT) thereof was obtained by the police. Special report (Ex.PC) was handed over by SI Ram Karan (PW.8) to Sonam Choppel, Additional Superintendent of Police. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

3. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took defence of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led.

5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal.

6. We have heard M/s Ashok Chaudhary, V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate Generals, assisted by Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence.

8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:

“(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the sub