Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J, SATYEN VAIDYA,J
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Hom Singh @ Homi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the case and details of the narcotics recovery. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues regarding the admissibility of statements made by the co-accused. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. extensive discussion on section 27 of the indian evidence act. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “the NDPS Act”), the petitioner-State has filed the instant petition for grant of leave to appeal.
2 The parties do not dispute that the case as set out by the prosecution has correctly been enumerated by the learned Special Judge, therefore, the same is extracted as such from the judgment.
“2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that H.C. Nek Ram (PW-18), constable Mahinder Singh (PW-1), constable Vivek Sen (PW-2), constable Pushap Raj and HHG Kapil Dev were on patrolling duty in a private vehicle bearing registration no. HP 32-A-3153 bei.ng driven by H.C. Nek Ram. They were sitting in the vehicle at 12:40 pm near the Bajaj showroom. The accused was coming towards Gutkar. When he reached the vehicle in which
For an accused to be convicted under drug laws, the prosecution must prove a direct link between them and the crime, relying solely on co-accused statements is insufficient evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
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....
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
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 ....
The judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
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.
Recovery from hand-carried P-Cap exempts Section 50 NDPS; Section 42 inapplicable in public place. Suspicious post-search consent memo and material contradictions in official witnesses on core recove....
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
