Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Om Parkash & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2011
Decided On : 21-03-2018
Bhupinder Thakur, J.S Guleria, Lakshay Thakur, Peeyush Verma, Sudhir Bhatnagar, Vinod Thakur, Advocates for the appearing parties.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence, procedural compliance, and the need for a higher degree of assurance in cases involving serious offences.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Acquittal - Section 20 of the NDPS Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in possession of contraband, but the trial court acquitted them due to contradictions in the prosecution evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence contained major contradictions and discrepancies, including the lack of independent witnesses and procedural irregularities in the search and seizure process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the contradictions in the prosecution evidence were sufficient to acquit the accused and the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor contradictions and inconsistencies may not affect the core of the prosecution case, but material contradictions that cast doubt on the truthfulness of witnesses can discredit their testimony. The court also highlighted the importance of complying with procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving serious offences.
Final Decision: The court upheld the acquittal, stating that the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence and there were serious doubts about the investigation and recovery process.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The State has come up in appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Code'') against the judgment rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2010 whereby the respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as the ''accused'') charged for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short NDPS Act) , have been acquitted.
2. The prosecution story which emerges from the record is that on 8.9.2010, ASI Ram Lal, LHC Kishori Lal, LHC Narpat Ram, C. Dhameshwar, C. Jitender Kumar and C. Kashmir Singh had set up a ''Naka'' at Dadi. At about 8.30 a.m. both the accused persons were seen coming on foot from Banjar towards Bali Chowki, who after seeing the police party started moving fast. The accused Om Parkash was carrying a Pithu bag, while accused Gopal Chand was having a bag with strips (Tani) . Both the accused persons were apprehended. However, since the place was secluded one and as it was night time, no independent witnesses could be associated. Certain vehicles did cross through the road and were even stopped, however, their drivers and conductors expressed their unwillingness to become witness. Thereafter, the police officials gave their personal search to the accused persons and since no adverse material or contraband was recovered, the police officials then they proceeded to search the bags of the accused. On search of Pithu bag carried by accused Om Parkash, black coloured material in the shape of sticks and balls wrapped in a plastic tape was recovered, which on smelling was found to be cannabis. On the search of the bag carried by accused Gopal Chand, it was also found to be containing black coloured material in the shape of ''chapati'', sticks and balls, which on smelling was found to be cannabis. Thereafter, the recovered contraband was weighed and sealed etc. and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The samples of contraband was sent for analysis to the Laboratory and after receipt of positive report and after completion of entire formalities, challan against the accused was filed in the Court. Finding a prima-facie case, the accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined 12 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied the case of the prosecution and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, no evidence in defence was adduced by the accused.
4. The learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground of contradictions that had appeared in the prosecution evidence.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.
6. It is vehemently argued by learned Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer are perverse and thus liable to be set-aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the accused has supported the impugned judgment and would contend that once the evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence being replete with major contradictions and embellishments, then obviously the learned Presiding Officer had no other option but to acquit the accused/respondents.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7. At the out-set, it needs to be observed that the Court in such like cases has to first consider as to whether material contradictions as noticed by the learned Court below are sufficient to acquit the respondents/accused and further consider the scope and ambit of appeal against acquittal.
8. As regards material contradictions, it is more than settled that while appreciating evid
