Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Paras Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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 nea
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 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 conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld based on credible police testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, establishing the integrity of the case property.
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....
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
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 absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
Point of Law : In a case under the NDPS Act, reverse burden applies. Once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, it is for the accused to explain, though the standard of proof for both is dif....
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
