Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Paras Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 245 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr Karanveer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

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; Section 52A inapplicable without sampling.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1984 - Section 20(b)(ii)

(B) - Possession of commercial quantity charas (800 grams) - Chance recovery from accused fleeing on sighting police naka - Independent witness turned hostile, prior statement inconsistent, credit impeached under Evidence Act Section 155(3) - Testimony discarded but not fatal to prosecution - Official witnesses' testimonies consistent on material aspects, minor contradictions/omissions due to time lapse (over 1-3 years) not affecting core, having ring of truth - Non-association of independents not obligatory in patrolling/chance recovery - Section 52A inapplicable as entire contraband sent intact to FSL initially, no sampling needed - Seals intact per FSL report establishes integrity, no tampering - Conviction and sentence (8 years RI, fine Rs.80,000/-, default 1 year RI) proportionate, upheld. (Paras 6,13-19,20-33,36-51,53-54)

(B) Evidence appreciation - Hostile witness admitting signatures on documents without complaint of blank signing undermines denial - Police testimonies not discarded merely for official status, no motive to falsely implicate - Discrepancies in trivial details (light source, personal search, photography mode, deposit dates/names) ignored unless material - Malkhana discrepancies immaterial if seals intact. (Paras 12,18,20-28,47-51)

(C) Procedure - Personal search option offered, compliance with Sections 52,55,57 NDPS noted - Arrest memo discloses no on-spot presence of relative - Colour variation (moongia/green) for bag non-material. (Paras 6,26,34,52)

Facts of the case:
Police naka on road, vehicle stopped for check, accused approaches from one side carrying backpack, turns back and runs on sighting police, falls, apprehended; purple carry bag in backpack yields 800 grams charas, sealed (6 impressions 'SB'), NCB forms filled, seizure memo, rukka, FIR registered; resealed ('BH'), malkhana deposited, sent to FSL (intact seals), analysed positive for charas (10.88% resin); produced before Magistrate (seals intact, weighed); inventory certified later with samples; trial convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)

(B), sentenced 8 years RI + fine; appeal urging hostile witness, contradictions, non-association, procedural lapses.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution case proved beyond doubt; testimonies reliable; recovery genuine; appeal dismissed, conviction/sentence affirmed.

Issues: Effect of hostile independent witness; materiality of contradictions in official testimonies; necessity of independent association in chance recovery; compliance with Section 52A; case property integrity.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution not vitiated by hostile independent or non-association in chance recovery; minor witness discrepancies from memory lapse overlooked if core intact; official evidence trustworthy absent motive; intact FSL seals prove no tampering; Section 52A non-mandatory/applicable sans sampling.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. police recovery of 800g charas from suspect (Para 2)
2. trial proceedings and accused denial (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. trial court upholds prosecution case (Para 6)
4. appellant challenges contradictions, procedures (Para 7 , 9)
5. state defends witness reliability (Para 10)
6. hostile independent witness not fatal (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. minor contradictions due to time lapse (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. police testimonies reliable without corroboration (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. no need for independent witnesses in chance recovery (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. section 52a inapplicable for full sample sent (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
11. intact seals prove case property integrity (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
12. minor discrepancies do not vitiate conviction (Para 52 , 53)
13. appeal dismissed, sentence proportionate (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, HP (learned Trial Court) in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 2018, vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1984 (NDPS Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. Eighty Thouand only), and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous 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 against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that S.I. Babu Ram (PW-5), HHC Manohar Lal (PW-2), Constable Sunila Kumar (PW-3) and Constable Dalip Kumar (not examined) had set up a naka near Dunali on Chamba-Bharmour road on 03.04.2017 at about 4.00 P.M. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-6672 came from Chamba, which was signalled to stop. The driver identified himself as Ramesh Kumar (PW-1). When the police were checking the documents of the vehicle the accused came from Dunali towards Chamba carrying a backpack. The accused returned after seeing the police. The police became suspicious. He fell while running, and the police apprehended him. He identified himself as Paras Ram. The police checked the carry bag and recovered a purple carry bag containing 800 grams of charas. The police put the charas in a cloth parcel, and sealed the parcel with six impressions of seal ‘SB’. NCB-I form (Ex. PW5/A) was filled in triplicate, and the seal impression ‘SB’ was put on the NCB-I form. The specimen of seal impression (Ex.PW1/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The seal, after its use, was handed over to Ramesh Kumar. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/B), and a copy of the seizure memo was supplied to the accused free of cost. Rukka (Ex.PW3/A) was prepared and sent to the police station, where FIR (Ex.PW14/A) was registered. S.I. Babu Ram (PW5) investigated the matter. He prepared a spot map (Ex.PW5/B). ASI Mohinder Singh (PW13) further investigated the matter. The documents and the accused were handed over to him vide memo (Ex.PW2/A). ASI Mohinder Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version and arrested the accused. He produced the accused and the cloth parcel before Inspector/SHO Dharam Singh (PW-14), who checked the seals and resealed the parcel with five impressions of seal “BH”. He obtained the specimen of seal ‘BH’ (Ex.PW14/C) on a separate piece of cloth and the NCB-I form. He handed over the seal to H.C. Chaman Lal (PW-15) after its use. He prepared the resealing memo (Ex.PW 6/A) and