Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Farida Begum – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 108 of 2022
Decided on : 15-12-2023
NDPS Act - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, which deals with punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. The court highlighted the importance of veracity of official witnesses and the need for cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for carrying contraband drugs. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of official witnesses, as the independent witness did not support the prosecution. However, discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of official witnesses raised doubts about the prosecution's version of events.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of official witnesses created doubt about the prosecution's case. It concluded that there was no cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the veracity of official witnesses, the conduct of the search, and the circumstances of the appellant's apprehension. The court also addressed the reliance on official witnesses in the absence of an independent witness supporting the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of close scrutiny and caution when relying on the testimony of official witnesses. It highlighted that discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of official witnesses, especially in crucial aspects of the case, could be fatal for the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charged offence. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Present appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 1.4.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge-II, Sirmaur at Nahan in CIS Case No. 158 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Farida Begum, arising out of police challan under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) in FIR No. 227 of 2013, dated 25.6.2013, registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record.
3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 25.6.2013, seven Police officials of Special Investigating Unit (SIU), during lunch hours, proceeded from Nahan on patrolling. H.C. Hari Chand, constables Mukesh Kumar, Kailash Panwar, Vikramjeet and Rajinder were in private car of Hari Chand, whereas Amit and Rupinder were on Motor Cycle. They reached Vishwakarma Chowk at about 5:55 P.M. where H.C. Hari Chand received a secret information that one Farida Begum W/o Rashid R/o Village Sainwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. was coming on Motor Cycle of her son from Vikasnagar side alongwith contraband (drugs). On the basis of aforesaid information, PW-3 HC Hari Chand reduced the information into writing in the shape of report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and handed over the same to PW-14 Constable Mukesh to deliver it to SDPO, Paonta Sahib. In the report there was request to send one lady constable and a senior Officer on the spot. In response to said request, Dy. SP (Probation) Kuldeep Kumar (PW-10) alongwith PW-2 Lady Constable Suman proceeded to the spot and reached there at 6:30 P.M.
4. After arrival of Dy. SP Kuldep Kumar and Lady Constable Suman, PW-1 Mohd. Inam was associated as independent witness and Naka was laid at Vishwakarma Chowk. At about 6:45 P.M. a Motor Cycle, being driven by a boy with a lady pillion rider, came which was stopped by the Police. On inquiry rider of Motor Cycle disclosed his name Imran S/o Rashid and pillion rider disclosed her name Farida Begum W/o Rashid, both R/o Village Sainwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. the lady was holding a white and black coloured bag in her hand.
5. PW-10 Dy. SP Kuldeep Kumar apprised Farida Begum about her right related to her search either from Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer. Farida Begum consented for search by the Police Party. Members of Police Party gave their search to Farida and thereafter Farida was searched by PW-2 Lady Constable Suman. During search from the polythene bag carried by Farida, 27 strips of capsules each containing 24 capsules, total 648 capsules of Dextro Propoxiphen Napsilate were found. Total quantity of drugs in capsules was found to be 64.8 grams. Farida Begum could not produce any permit/license for carrying aforesaid contraband. The contraband was repacked in the same bag and taken in possession as per procedure prescribed under law and NCB Form was filled in triplicate and by sending Rukka to the Police Station FIR was registered. Parcel of capsules, sample seal, NCB Form, Motor Cycle of the accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. On finding sufficient material, Farida was arrested and investigation was completed in accordance with law and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
6. During trial, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, whereas after recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no defence evidence has been produced by Farida.
7. On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of 50,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. Against conviction and sentence present appeal has been preferred.
8. The only independent witness PW-1 Mohd. Inam has not supported the prosecution
AI
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential, failing which evidence obtained may be deemed inadmissible, and acquittal may be warranted due to lack of credible evidence.
The court confirmed convictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing strict standards of evidence and the presumption of guilt regarding drug possession, while minor discrepancies in testimonies were deem....
Section 50 of NDPS Act are reproduced as Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
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....
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.
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if police testimonies are credible, and Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable when recovery is from a bag.
Conviction can be based upon testimonies of official witnesses, if inspire confidence.
Point of Law : The purpose of Section 52-A is to provide a mechanism, whereby there is no misuse of the contraband recovered by the authorities and the same is kept in safe custody and/or destroyed w....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
