The acquittal of an accused cannot be overturned unless compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt is provided, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the credibility of witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.4-S/7 of 2013, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to instant appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 28.09.2012, while a police party headed by Dy. SP Vijay Sharma, was on patrolling duty near Tara Devi, it received a secret information at about 10.30 A.M. that one person named Shiv Kumar, having Mobile No.8894164432, was coming from Dalash (Kullu) alongwith charas. On the basis of said information, police laid a naka and started checking the vehicles and when a bus bearing No.CH-01G-8893 came from Shimla side, it was stopped for checking and thereafter, when a person, sitting on Seat No.40, was asked to disclose his name, he disclosed his name as Shiv Kumar (accused/respondent herein), who was having a pithu bag in his lap. Thereafter, the driver and conductor of the bus were associated as witnesses by the police and then search of the pithu bag being carried by the accused was conducted. During the search, one sweater and one carry bag, wrapped with cello tape were taken out and on opening the carry bag, one shoe box, wrapped with cello tape, was found and after opening the shoe box, a black coloured substance was found inside the box. On smelling and experience, it was found to be charas. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 3.150 kilograms. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., recovered contraband was repacked in the same manner and then put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with 6 seals of seal impression ‘H’. Sample seal was separately taken on a piece of cloth. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled and seal after use was handed over to Krishan Chand. The Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and sent to the police station, through Constable Biri Singh, on the basis of which, FIR in question was registered against the accused. Police recorded statements of the witnesses, clicked photographs and prepared the spot map. The accused was arrested and got medically examined. The cloth parcel, containing the recovered contraband, was handed over to SHO, who, after checking the entries, re-sealed the same with 6 seals of seal impression ‘C’ and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. The case property was sent to FSL, Junga for analysis.

3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the SFSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.05.2013 framed charges against the accused under Section 20 of NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 , Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and having been falsely impliaced in the case.

6. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2014, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, but at the same time, has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence. He further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly given undue weightage to the minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which do not go to the root of the case and fur