IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Devender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2011
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - Conviction for possession of charas - Appellant convicted and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000/- - Evidence of police officials corroborated, despite minor contradictions - Independent witness turned hostile, but prosecution case upheld based on official testimonies - Integrity of case property established, with no tampering - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 6, 72)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - Minor discrepancies in testimonies of police officials do not undermine the prosecution case - Testimony of hostile witnesses can still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 15, 36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was apprehended by police while carrying a bag containing charas weighing 260 grams. The police conducted a search and seizure, leading to the appellant's conviction. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found the testimonies of police officials credible and established the integrity of the case property. The minor contradictions were not sufficient to discard the prosecution's case. (Paras 6, 70)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of police witnesses, the significance of independent witnesses, and the integrity of the case property. (Paras 6, 70)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the testimonies of police officials, despite minor contradictions, were credible and sufficient to uphold the conviction. The integrity of the case property was established, and the absence of independent witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case. (Paras 6, 70)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.1.2011 and order of sentence dated 18.1.2011, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, 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 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ND&PS Act’) and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for four months, pay fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days 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 appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act. It was asserted that HC Rajesh Kumar (PW9), and Constable Umesh Pal (PW8) had gone towards Waknaghat, Kayarighat, Shalaghat etc. to patrol vide entry No. 25 (Ex.PW6/B) in the official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-14A-6204, which was being driven by Constable Rambhaj. They met Constable Praveen Kumar (PW2), who was earlier sent for patrolling vide entry No. 24 (Ex.PW6/A). Uma Dutt (PW1) also sought a lift from HC Rajesh Kumar (PW9). He and Constable Praveen Kumar boarded the official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-14A-6204. When the vehicle reached Waknaghat Bowri (Water Spring), at 6.15 PM, the accused was seen going towards Kandaghat carrying a polythene bag (Ex. P2) in his right hand. He tried to get down the hill after seeing the police. The police became suspicious that the accused might have some stolen articles or he might have committed some offence. The police apprehended him. The accused identified himself as Devender Kumar. The police checked the carry bag (Ex. P2) being carried by the accused. A dhoti (Ex. P3) containing charas (Ex. P4) wrapped in a transparent polythene packet (Ex. P5) was found inside the carry bag. Constable Umesh Dutt (PW1) brought the electronic weighing scale from Bhagat Singh (PW5). The charas was weighed and its weight was found to be 260 grams. It was put in the transparent polythene, which was put in dhoti and dhoti was put in the carry bag from which it was recovered in the same manner in which they were found. The carry bag was put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with three seal impressions of X. The seal impression (Ex.PW3/D) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. NCB-1 Form (Ex.PW3/E) was filled. The seal impression was taken on the form and the seal was handed over to Uma Dutt (PW1) after use. A Memo of handing over the seal (Ex.PW1/C) was prepared. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/D). Rukka (Ex.PW3/A) was prepared and sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW3/B) was registered. HC Rajesh Kumar (PW9) conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/B). He brought the accused and the case property to the Police Station and produced them before ASI Ashok Kumar (PW3). ASI Ashok Kumar checked the seals on the parcels and sealed them with seal ‘Y’ at six places. He obtained the seal impression (Ex.PW3/D) on a separate piece of cloth. He filled Columns No.9 to 11 of the NCB-1 Form (Ex.PW3/E). He obtained a seal impression of ‘Y’ on the NCB-1 form. He issued a certificate of resealing (Ex.PW3/F). He handed over the case property, sample seals, NCB-1 Form in triplicate and other documents to HC Brij Lal (PW6) who made an entry at Serial No. 57/09 in the Malkhana register (Ex.PW6/F) and deposited all the articles in Malkhana. He handed over the parcel, sample seals, memo and FIR to HHC Sohan Lal (PW4), who carried them to FSL, Junga
The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld based on credible police testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, establishing the integrity of the case property.
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....
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 ....
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....
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
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.
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
Pre-search consent memo mentioning specific NDPS section infers post-recovery fabrication; contradictions in police testimonies, failure to secure independent witnesses near populated area, and lack ....
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.