SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant.
Versus
Neelma Devi - Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No.22 of 2014
Decided on : 21-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant/State :Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

The appellate court affirmed that a trial court's acquittal may not be disturbed unless it is found to suffer from patent perversity or misreading of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on the grounds of contradictory testimonies of prosecution witnesses and unsatisfactory evidence, leading to a judgment that could not be interfered with in appeal. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 12, 18)

(B) Legal principles of appeal against acquittal - The appellate court has full power to review evidence and must consider if the trial court's decision was possible on the evidence. Double presumption in favor of the accused exists. (Paras 12, 39)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possessing 2 kg of charas. The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including official witnesses who testified about the recovery process. The accused argued the evidence was fabricated. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution did not produce satisfactory evidence owing to contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements. It deemed the evidence insufficient for conviction, leading to acquittal. (Paras 6, 18)

Issues: The court addressed the contradictions in witness testimonies, the validity of the analysis report, and the trial court's rationale for acquittal. (Paras 10, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the trial court’s findings were reasonable given the contradictory evidence and the lack of credible proof against the accused, warranting no interference with the acquittal judgment. (Paras 10, 18)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the case and police action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial court's finding of contradictions in evidence. (Para 6)
3. appellant's argument against trial court’s acquittal. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. principles governing appellate review of acquittal. (Para 12)
5. court’s observations on evidence and validity of acquittal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. dismissal of appeal against trial court’s judgment. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). (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 against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that ASI Ram Lal (PW9), HC Raj Pal, HHC Hem Raj (PW8), LC Uma Devi and HHG Kapil Sharma were going towards Tilla Bridge on 12.4.2011, at about 2.30 PM. They s aw the accused coming from Thanagarh towards Tilla Bridge on foot. She returned after seeing the police party. She had a black bag (Ex. P2) in her right hand. She threw the bag and started running away. The police apprehended her with the help of LC Uma Devi. Gautam Ram (PW1) and Ses Ram (PW5) came from Thanagarh. They were apprised of the circumstances and were requested to become witnesses. They agreed to become witnesses. The police picked up the bag and inquired about the accused's name. She revealed her name as Neelma Devi. She could not give any satisfactory reason for throwing the bag. The police opened the bag and found Charas (Ex.P3) inside it. The police weighed the charas and found its weight to be 2 kg. Charas was put in the bag, the bag was tied with a knot and it was placed in a cloth parcel (Ex. P1). The parcel was sealed with six impressions of seal ‘T’. Sample seal ‘T’ (Ex.PW8/A) was taken on separate pieces of cloth. NCB-1 form (Ex.PW2/C) was filled and the seal impression was put. on the form. The seal was handed over to HHC Hem Raj after the use. The photographs of the spot (Ex.PW8/B1 and Ex.PW8/B2) were taken. The charas was seized vide memo (Ex.PW8/C). Rukka (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared and it was handed over to HHC Hem Raj with a direction to carry it to the Police Station. FIR (Ex.PW4/B) was registered in the Police Station. ASI Ram Lal (PW9) conducted the investigation on the spot. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ex.PW9/D) and gave the arrest information to the daughter-in-law of the accused. He produced the case property before SI Surinder Pathak (PW4), who resealed the parcel with three impressions of seal ‘N’. He obtained the seal impression ‘N’ on the NCB-I form. He handed over the case property and the documents to HC Ramesh (PW2) who made an entry at Serial No. 52 (Ex.PW2/A) and deposited the case property in malkhana. He handed over the case property to HHC Bahadur Singh (PW3) on 15.4.2011 along with NCB-I form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, FIR, sample seals ‘N’ and ‘T’ with a direction to carry them to FSL, Junga vide RC No. 44/2011 (Ex.PW2/B). HHC Bahadur Singh deposited all the articles at FSL, Junga and handed over the receipt to MHC Ramesh Kumar on his return. ASI Ram Lal prepared the special report (Ex.PW6/A) and handed it over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu. Additional Superintendent of Police made the endorsement on the special report and handed it over to his Reader HC Harbans (PW 6) on 13.4.2011 at 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top