Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA, JJ.
Dula Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 and 212 of 2009
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. Parth Sagar, Advs., Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Adv. (Legal Aid Counsel).
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Prosecution must establish connection and prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to uphold NDPS Act convictions; mere assertions without reliable evidence lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Conviction and sentence of 10 years rigour imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- set aside due to insufficient evidence linking the appellants to the contraband seized - The chemical examiner's report was determined as inconclusive - Prosecution's case relied heavily on non-cooperative independent witnesses, raising doubts about the veracity of their story - The lack of evidence to establish a connection between the appellants and the contraband left reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 2, 4, 37)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The appellants denied all allegations without leading any evidence in defence, yet the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under the NDPS Act on the basis of secret information leading to the recovery of 16 bags of contraband from Angrejo Devi's residence. The police raid faced significant discrepancies owing to hostile witnesses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the recovery process.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the appellants due to material contradictions in witness testimonies and failure to show a direct link between the seized contraband and the appellants, warranting their acquittal.

Issues: The Court addressed the issues of whether the prosecution proved the connection of the appellants to the contraband and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the prosecution's failure to provide corroborative evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the conviction, supporting the appeals' allowance and overturning the trial court's decisions.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. appeals against conviction under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. supreme court's guidance on case reassessment. (Para 4 , 5)
3. details of arrest and trial procedures. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. defense arguments regarding prosecution flaws. (Para 9 , 10)
5. witness testimonies inconsistent with prosecution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. statements regarding evidence receipt discrepancies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. contradictions in evidence handling protocols. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. consent memos raise procedural doubts. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. witnesses deny prosecution's version of events. (Para 28 , 29)
10. photographic evidence and its reliability questioned. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
11. witness reliability and cross-examinations reveal inconsistencies. (Para 33 , 34)
12. prosecution failed to establish connect with evidence. (Para 35 , 36)
13. court's decision to acquit based on insufficiency of evidence. (Para 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Appellants, in both these appeals, have preferred these appeals against common judgment dated 27.5.2009 passed by Special Judge-II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 2-N/7 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dula Ram and Another, in case FIR No. 365/2007, dated 30.10.2007, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), whereby appellants, who are co-convict have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under of the NDPS Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

2. Both these appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed by co-ordinate Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 15th December, 2009, mainly on the ground that report Ex. PW-17/E of chemical examiner, in view of judgment passed by this High Court in Rajiv Kumar alias Guglu Vs. State of H.P. , HLJ 2008 (HP) 247, was not considered to be a conclusive report to prove that contraband alleged to be recovered from the appellants was poppy straw/opium poppy. It is apt to record that on similar lines in another judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed in Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo and others Vs. State of H.P. for similar grounds, accused Nirmal Kaur and others were acquitted by the Trial Court by referring the reasons in consonance with Rajiv Kumar’s case.

3. The aforesaid judgment in Nirmal Kaur’s case was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing Cr. Appeal No. 956 of 2012, which was decided on 20.10.2022 and judgment of acquittal passed by this High court was set aside and matter was remanded for deciding afresh in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo and others , 2022 (15) Scale 347 .

4. In present appeals, respondent-State preferred Cr. Appeal No. 958 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dula Ram and Cr. Appeal No. 959 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Angrejo Devi , before the Supreme Court, against acquittal of appellants vide judgment dated 15th December, 2009 passed by co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, which was heard and decided by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.11.2022, in the following terms:-

“1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl) No. 761/2014.
2. The High Court basically allowed the appeals on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized material is not the genesis of a plant of Papaver somniferum L or any other plant, which is notified by the Central Government under Section 2(xvii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).
3. On a reference, this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur alias Nimmo and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1462, has decided the issue and it has been held that once i