IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Rakesh Kainthla, JJ.
Dilo Begum – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 202 of 2020 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 145 of 2020
Decided On : 27-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants' conviction and initial trial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. standards of evidence and procedural compliance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. debate on the reliability of police testimonies. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2020, vide which the appellants (accused persons before the Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) read with Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- each and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the commission of aforesaid offence. In addition to the above, the accused Naseer Mohammed was also convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 473 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that ASI-Govind Pal (PW19), HHC-Mohammad Aslam (PW1), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW4), HHC-Manohar Lal (PW2), LC Rajni Rani (not examined), LC Sabina (PW7) were present on traffic checking and nakabandi duty at Behi near Koti Tissa, Chamba Road in the official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-48-1220 with I.O. kit, electronic scale, mega light, official camera etc. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12A-2732 came from Tissa. ASI-Govind Pal signalled the driver to stop the motorcycle. One woman was sitting as a pillion rider, who had kept a purse on her left shoulder. The motorcycle driver revealed his name as Naseer and the pillion rider revealed her name as Dilo Begum. She got frightened on inquiry by the police. The police called Tarun Abrol (PW3) from a nearby shop and checked the purse being carried by Dilo Begum. One white shawl was found inside the purse. The purse was unzipped and it was found to contain a carry bag (Ext. P6). The carry bag was opened and it was found to contain charas (Ext. P7). The charas was weighed with the help of an electronic weighing scale and its weight was found to be 2.010 kgs. The charas was put in the carry bag. The Carry bag was put in the purse. Shawl (Ext. P5) was also put in the purse (Ext.P4). The purse was wrapped in a cloth parcel (Ext. P1). The parcel was sealed with six impressions of seal ‘SB’. The seal impression (Ext.PW1/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. NCB-1 Form (Ext. PW19/A) was filled in triplicate. A sample seal was put on the Form. The parcel and the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-12A-2732 were seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). Signatures of witnesses Tarun Abrol, HHC Mohammed Aslam and LC Sabina Devi were obtained on the memo. A copy of the seizure memo was supplied to each of the accused. Rukka (Ext. PW15/B) and its copy (Ext. PW8/A) were prepared and handed over to HHC-Manohar Lal with a direction to carry the original to the police station and the carbon copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters. HHC-Manohar Lal handed over the original Rukka at Police Station, Sadar and its carbon copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chamba. FIR (Ext. PW15/A) was registered in the Police Station based on the Rukka. The case file was handed over to HHC-Manohar Lal with a direction to carry it to the spot. HHC-Manohar Lal handed over the case file to ASI Govind Pal, who filled in the FIR number on the documents. Deputy Superintendent
A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian
Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana
Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
Avtar alias Tarri Vs State of HP
Baikuntha Nath v. Prasannamoyi
Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Balu Sudam Khalde And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra AIR 2023 SC 1736
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753)
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Bhoju Mandal v. Debnath Bhagat
CBI v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum
Dayalu Kashyap versus State Of Chhattisgarh
GaganKanojia v. State of Punjab
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana
Ian Stilman versus. State 2002(2) ShimLC 16
In Re Kaibanna Tippanna AIR 1966 Mys 248: 1966 CrLJ 1155
Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration)
Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra[(1999) 8 SCC 257: AIR 2000 SC 402
Kallu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan
Karamjit Singh versus State AIR 2003 S.C 3011
Kashmira Singh Versus State of Punjab 1999 (1) SCC 130
Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana
Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 674
Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Luchiram Motilal v. Radhe Charan
Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: 2003 SCC(Cri) 1664: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 874
Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709
Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627
Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine 784
Mukesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2020 SC 4794
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v. State of Maharashtra
Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra
Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 (6) SCC 588
Praphulla Kumar Sarkar v. Emperor
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa
Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.
Raja and Others versus State of Karnataka
Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P.
Raveen Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2020 SC 5375
Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam
Rizwan Khan Versus State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627
Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
SarveshNarain Shukla v. Daroga Singh
Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan versus State represented by Inspector of Police
Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sunil
State by Inspector of Police, NIB
State of Punjab v Balbir Singh
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
State of Punjab Versus Baljinder Singh & another
State of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash
State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr.
State of Rajasthan vs Jagraj Singh @ Hansa 2016 (11) SCC 687
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra
State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar
Sudru versus State of Chhattisgarh
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana
Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab
Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka
Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP.
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.
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
In NDPS chance recovery of charas from vehicle bag at lonely place, non-association of independent witnesses, Section 50 non-applicability, minor contradictions, seal non-production, and Section 52A ....
Testimony of police officials can be sufficient for conviction in drug cases, even without independent witnesses, as long as found reliable and trustworthy.
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
Section 50 of NDPS Act are reproduced as Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
Stringent punishment has been provided for offences punishable under NDPS Act.
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.