Minor contradictions in witness statements do not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case, and the trial court's conviction was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant Khadak Bahadur Gautam has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of conviction, dated 16.09.2019, and order of sentence, dated 20.09.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, (Camp at Bilaspur), District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’).

2. By way of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to hereinabove, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS’) Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

The police of Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., has submitted charge sheet, disclosing therein, that ASI Roshan Lal, IO, has submitted a Ruka to the Police Station on 07.03.2018, mentioning therein that he, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty. They had conducted the patrolling at Nouni. Meanwhile, HC Sanjeev Kumar No.80, Constable Chanchal Singh No.315 and other police officials of the STF Staff Cell, Bilaspur, also joined them. All of them had conducted the patrolling and reached at place known as Mandi, Manwa, then, at about 4:30 PM, they noticed a Nepali national, moving on foot, towards Nouni side, who was having a white coloured plastic sack, in his hand. On seeing the police vehicle, he became perplexed and when the police stopped the vehicle, the said Nepali national tried to flee away, as such, a suspicion had developed in the mind of the IO that he might be having some illegal substance, in his possession, as such, he was nabbed. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Khadak Bahadur Gautam (accused). Thereafter, two independent witnesses, namely Subham and Kartik, were associated in the investigation. Subsequently, the sack was opened, which, on opening, was found to be containing 770 gram charas. The other codal formalities were completed and after the registration of FIR, the accused was arrested.

3.1. The contraband so recovered, was sent to FSL Junga, from where, the positive report has been received. As such, the police has submitted the charge sheet, before the learned trial Court.

4. After securing the presence of the accused and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC., the learned trial Court found a prima-facie case, for commission of offence, punishable under Section 20 NDPS Act. As such, the accused has been charge sheeted, vide order dated 18.06.2018.

5. When the charge, so framed, was put to him, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge framed against the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, twelve witnesses.

6. After the closure of the evidence, the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and took the simplicitor defence of false implication and innocence. However, in his defence, the accused has not led any evidence.

7. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned above, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred, by the accused, before this Court, mainly on the ground that the learned trial Cour