IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rinku Tamang - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 143 of 2024
Decided on : 06-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21 - Conviction for possession of heroin - Appellant convicted and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- by Trial Court - Integrity of case property questioned due to presence of unrelated items in the parcel - Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the conviction. (Paras 25, 26, 28)
(B) Evidence - Chain of custody - The prosecution must prove the integrity of the case property and establish that it was not tampered with during the investigation. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 14 grams of heroin found in his backpack during a police inspection of a bus. The integrity of the evidence was challenged due to the discovery of a gas lighter and nail-cutter in the parcel containing the contraband. (Paras 1, 2, 25)
Findings of Court:
The presence of unrelated items in the parcel raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was not sustainable. (Paras 25, 28)
Issues: Whether the integrity of the case property was maintained and whether the prosecution established the chain of custody. (Paras 25, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of unrelated items in the evidence raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, necessitating the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 25, 28)
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. (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 appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12), HC Samad (PW-9), and Constable Sandeep Rana were on patrolling duty at Salappar Bridge on 13.04.2023. An entry No.6 (Ext.P13/PW7) was recorded regarding their departure. A bus bearing registration No. CH01-GA-9975 came from Bilaspur toward Mandi at 1:00 a.m. The police stopped the bus for inspection. The driver of the bus revealed his name as Anil Kumar (PW-10), and the conductor identified himself as Jagsir Singh. The police checked the passengers of the bus in their presence. The accused occupied seat No. 9 and had a backpack with him. The police questioned the accused about the backpack, which frightened him. The police became suspicious and enquired about the name of the accused in the presence of the driver, conductor, and HC Samad (PW-9). The accused identified himself as Rinku Tamang. The police gave their personal search to the accused, and nothing incriminating was found in their possession. A memo (Ext.P15/PW9) was prepared. The police checked the backpack (Ext.MO2) and found one PAN Card (Ext.MO3), a T-shirt (Ext.MO4), and jeans (Ext. MO5) in the larger pocket of the backpack. A transparent polythene packet (Ext.MO6) tied with a knot was discovered in the pocket of the jeans. The police examined the polythene packet and found heroin inside. The police weighed the heroin and found its weight to be 14 (fourteen) grams. The polythene was tied in the same manner, in which it was recovered. The PAN Card, the T-shirt, and jeans were also placed in the backpack in the same manner as they were recovered. The backpack was placed in a cloth parcel (Ex.MO1), and the parcel was sealed with six seals of impression ‘04 BTR’. The NCB-1 form (Ext.P5/PW2) was filled in triplicate. The seal impression ‘04 BTR’ was applied to the form. A sample seal (Ext. P16/P-9) was placed on the cloth parcel, and the seal was handed over to Anil Kumar (PW- 10) after its use. The NCB-1 form, cloth parcel, sample seal, and bus ticket were seized vide memo (Ext.P17/PW9). Rukka (Ext.P47/PW12) was prepared and sent to the Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., where an F.I.R. (Ext.P3/PW-2) was registered. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) investigated the case. He arrived on the scene at 6:00 a.m. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) handed over Rukka, the memo of search, the NCB-1 form, the seizure memo, the cloth parcel, the sample seal, the bus ticket, and the accused to SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) vide memo (Ext.P- 28/PW11). SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) prepared the spot map (Ext.P29/PW11). He recorded the statements of witnesses according to their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ext.P31/PW11). He produced the case file, the accused, and the case property before SHO Bharat Bhushan (PW-6), who resealed the parcel with three seals of seal impression CQ. Seal impression (Ext.P9/PW6) was placed on a separate piece of cloth. Columns 9 to 11 of the NCB-1 form (Ext.P5/PW2) were filled by SHO Bharat Bhushan (PW-6). Seal impression was also applied to the NCB-1 form. He handed over th
The prosecution must establish the integrity of the case property and the chain of custody; failure to do so results in reasonable doubt and necessitates acquittal.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene when the trial court's findings demonstrate clear legal error or perverse reasoning.
NDPS conviction upheld in chance recovery despite hostile independent witness and minor official contradictions; non-association of independents not fatal; case property integrity via intact seals; S....
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....
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld based on credible police testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, establishing the integrity of the case property.
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 court held that the prosecution's reliance on police witnesses is valid despite absence of independent witnesses, emphasizing that procedural defects in sample collection did not automatically in....
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.