IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Hukam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374, 173(2), 313, 164, 437A - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20, 50 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B – Charas recovered - Appeal against conviction - Appellant has preferred appeal against judgment of conviction – It was obligatory on official witnesses to depose about all material facts and their non-deposition, raises suspicion in story of prosecution - Para 73.
Finding of the Court: According to PW-13, after taking over investigation he has firstly prepared spot map and recorded statements of PWs as per their version - PW-13, prior to arrest of accused has been found to be mentioned in these documents, that too, in blue ink, is a fact, which is sufficient to create suspicion in case of prosecution - Documents which have been referred to above, FIR has been mentioned with red ink - FIR in all above documents, gives an occasion for Court to draw an inference that things were not happened, on spot, as deposed by official witnesses - Court is of view that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt - Order of sentence passed are set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
1. Appellant, Hukam Singh, has preferred the present appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.6.2022, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.13/2020 in FIR No.143/2019, dated 11.10.2019, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘ND & PS Act’) registered with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter referred to as the accused, as referred by the learned trial Court.
3. By way of the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.6.2022, the accused has been convicted by the learned trial Court, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the accused has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-
4.1. The Police of Police Station, Amb, has filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, on the allegations that on 11.10.2019, SI Gurmail Singh, I.O., Police Station, Amb, along with ASI Pawan Kumar, HHC Vijay Kumar, C. Krishan Lal, was on patrolling duty, in official vehicle, being driven by HHG Dinu Ram. At about 2.10 pm, when, the police party was on Koharchham to Spauri road, then, they noticed a bike coming from Koharchham bridge. On noticing the police vehicle, the rider of the bike become perplexed, turned back his bike and made efforts to flee away. Since, he was found to be perplexed, therefore, I.O. overpowered him with the help of other Police officials.
4.2 On noticing the action of the police, the driver of one vehicle No.HP19-E3718 had also stopped his vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, on inquiry by police, had disclosed his name as Rajesh Kumar and the occupant, sitting with him, had disclosed his name as Avtar Chand, Pradhan, G.P. Chawar. Both of them were associated as witness, after obtaining their consent. Thereafter, in the presence of the above two persons, the driver of the bike KTM125 Duke, which was not having any registeration number, on inquiry, disclosed his name as Hukam Singh (accused), resident of village Kannauj, Tehsil and Police Station, Aut, District Mandi. He was carrying a rucksack on his back. Since, the I.O. had developed a suspicion that the rucksack might be containing some illegal thing in it, as such, the same was opened for checking. On checking the same, two carrybags, containing 4 packets of stick shaped substance, were found. When, the wrappers were removed, on the basis of experience, the said substance was found to be ‘charas’.
4.3 When, the contraband, so recovered, was weighed on the electronic weighing scale, then, the same was found to be 1.989 grams. The Charas, so recovered, was put in the same rucksack and the rucksack was put in the cloth parcel, which was sealed with 10 seals of seal ‘T’. NCB-I form was also filled in triplicate on the spot. The seal, after use, was handed over to Avtar Singh. Thereafter, SI Gurmail Singh, also developed a suspicion that the accused might have concealed something on his body, upon which, the options, as per Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, were given to the accused. The accused has opted to be searched by a gazetted officer of the revenue department. Upon which, I.O. requested Manoj Thakur, Tehsildar Amb to come present on the spot. Consequently, Tehsildar Amb, Sh.Manoj Kumar, reached at the spot at 3.15 p.m. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted, but nothing incriminating was found. The investigation, thereafter, was entrusted t
gpt-4
Conviction can be based upon testimonies of official witnesses, if inspire confidence.
Testimony of police officials can be sufficient for conviction in drug cases, even without independent witnesses, as long as found reliable and trustworthy.
An acquittal based on material contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained discrepancies in the weight of recovered contraband between the scene and the forensic lab is sound, as the prosec....
Stringent punishment has been provided for offences punishable under NDPS Act.
Acquittal under NDPS Section 20 upheld in appeal; no interference absent perversity where independent witnesses turn hostile denying recovery and contradictions undermine prosecution evidence.
Material contradictions in key witness testimonies on contraband possession vitiate NDPS prosecution case, entitling accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt despite recovery.
The court reaffirmed that in narcotic cases, the prosecution bears a heavy burden of proof, and any reasonable doubt resulting from discrepancies leads to acquittal.
Material contradictions in prosecution witnesses, non-examination of material witness, hostile independent witness, and procedural inconsistencies entitle accused to benefit of doubt resulting in acq....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.