The prosecution must prove exclusive and conscious possession of contraband beyond reasonable doubt, and the importance of reliable independent witnesses and consistent testimonies of police witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)—By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2014 (2012) dated 25.02.2015, vide which learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 16.06.2012 at around 1:30 p.m., Station House Officer, Police Station, Kullu (PW-7) Inspector Sher Singh received a secret information that accused was selling charas in his Khokha near Regional Hospital, Kullu. On the receipt of said information, a police party headed by PW-5 Sub Inspector Gaurav Bhardwaj and consisting of Head Constable Gian Chand, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Constable Ramesh and Constable Povinder Kumar reached Regional Hospital, Kullu where accused was found in one Khokha. Accused had both his legs amputated and was sitting on the counter and at that relevant time, one Bhupender Singh, son of Shri Arjun Singh was also found inside the Khokha, who was having tea there. Investigating Officer, Gaurav Bhardwaj (PW-5) associated Bhupender Singh, Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) and Constable Povinder in the course of search and seizure and asked the name of the accused, who disclosed his name as Shiv Ram. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer gave his personal search to the accused in the presence of the above-mentioned persons vide memo Ex. PW1/A and in the presence of the said witnesses, he conducted search of the Khokha/Dhaba, which was being run by the accused. As per the prosecution, during the course of the said search, when cushion with the support of which accused was sitting on the counter was checked, one transparent polythene envelope was recovered from there and when the said polythene envelope was opened, ball shape and stick shape black colour substance was found inside the said envelope which was found to be charas. The recovered charas when weighed was found to be 235 grams. The said charas was put inside the polythene envelope, which envelope was placed inside a cloth parcel and codal formalities of sealing and seizure of case property were undertaken by the Investigating Officer. NCB-1 form in triplicate was filled by him and thereafter, he prepared ruqua Ex. PW5/A, which was sent through Constable Ramesh to Police Station, Kullu, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW7/A was registered.

3. After completion of the codal formalities, which included preparation of spot map and recording the statements of the witnesses, the case property as well as accused were taken to Police Station. In the Police Station, SHO Sher Singh (PW-7) resealed the parcel and the sealed parcel along with other relevant documents and case property were handed over to MHC Ram Krishan. The same were thereafter sent to SFSL Junga through Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) and as per the report of the SFSL, the recovered substance was found to be charas.

4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence produced on record by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary, held that prosecution had failed to prove that on the relevant date, time and place, accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 235 grams charas unauthorisedly. Learned trial Court held that in fact the case of the prosecution was shrouded under the shadow of doubt and accordingly benefit of doubt deserved to be given to the accused. Learned trial Court held that neither the prosecution was able to substantiate from the statements of PW-1 and PW-5 that