Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Chamaru Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. (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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that H.C. Ramesh Kumar (PW-13), HC Dinesh Kumar (PW-1), Constable Hem Raj (PW-2), HHG Raj Kumar, H.C. Sanjeev Kumar (PW-4), HHC Manohar Lal, LHC Upender Chona, Constable Sunil Kumar, Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW-12) and ASI Govind Pal were present at
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
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 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 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....
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
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 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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
