Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Dimple – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 345 of 2015
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Raj Negi
For the Respondent: Pradeep Kumar Sharma

Appellate courts uphold trial court acquittals in NDPS cases unless perverse; material contradictions in police testimonies, sealing discrepancies, and non-association of available independent witnesses entitle accused to benefit of doubt.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Cr.P.C. - Section 378(3) - Appeal against acquittal - Police party on patrolling apprehends woman attempting to flee at secluded spot - Personal search by lady constable reveals 1 kg charas concealed in knee caps - No independent witnesses associated despite availability near residential area, check post - Trial Court acquitted finding material contradictions in official testimonies (mode of reaching spot, lighting for documents), sealing discrepancies (resealing mismatch in records and FSL report), raising tampering doubt - Appellate Court upheld acquittal as trial court's view possible, not perverse, given double presumption of innocence; interferes only in exceptional cases of compelling reasons or palpable error. (Paras 10-14, 22-25)

(B) Police witnesses - Testimony reliable if trustworthy and confidence inspiring, not discarded solely for lacking independent corroboration or police status - Here, contradictions (foot/vehicle travel, torch/street light, vehicle checks), non-association of independents despite availability, sealing infirmities render unreliable, benefit of doubt to accused. (Paras 17-21)

(C) Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court re-appreciates evidence but loath to disturb if trial view reasonable; two views possible, no interference; suspicion cannot substitute proof. (Paras 10-14, 26)

Facts of the case:
Police party notices woman walking towards road, turns back on seeing them, apprehended 10 meters away - Informed of search rights, consents to lady constable search - Knee caps removed, polythene packets with 1 kg charas recovered, sealed with nine seals - No independents joined despite nearby habitations, shops, check post - Trial Court acquitted; State appeals.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution fails to prove conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions, discrepancies, non-association of independents causing miscarriage of justice - Acquittal judgment proper, no interference.

Issues: Scope of appellate interference in acquittal; reliability of official testimonies sans independents; effect of contradictions, sealing mismatch on recovery veracity.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquittal appeals, double presumption of innocence; no reversal unless trial view perverse, only one conclusion possible - Police evidence scrutinized carefully; material contradictions, failure to join available independents despite NDPS safeguards fatal; sealing discrepancies suggest tampering possibility.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. state appeals trial court acquittal in ndps charas possession case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties contend on trial court's evidence appreciation. (Para 7 , 8)
3. appellate court interferes with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. prosecution relies on police for search and recovery proof. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. trustworthy police testimony sufficient without independent witnesses. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. contradictions and non-association of witnesses fatal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 26)
8. acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed for lack of proof. (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.03.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2011, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 16.05.2011, a police party, headed by ASI Amar Nath, was on patrolling duty towards Pandoh side and when the said police party was present at place ahead Bindrabani towards Pandoh, at about 8:30 p.m., one woman was noticed coming on foot from Pandoh side towards Mandi road. On seeing police, she suddenly turned back and tried to run, but she was apprehended by the police about ten meters away. Having suspicion of some contraband, police inquired her name and whereabouts, who disclosed her name as Dimple (respondent-accused herein). Since it was a secluded place, no independent witness could be associated in the proceedings, therefore, HC Shiv Singh and LC Champa Devi were associated as witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was made aware about her legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and after that, the personal search of the accused was conducted by LC Champa Devi, During search, the accused was found wearing knee caps on her both legs, which were taken out. Inside the said knee caps, cannabis, wrapped in plastic packets, was found and on weighing, the same was found to be 1 kg. Thereafter, the cannabis was kept in the same polythene and the same was taken into possession. The knee caps and cannabis were sealed at the spot with nine seals of seal impression ‘S’. Police completed all the codal formalities, viz., recovered contraband was taken into possession, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. Rukka was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered.

3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the SFSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the Trial Court.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 06.07.2012 framed charge against the accused under Section 20 of NDPS Act, to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, wherein she denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against her, besides pleaded to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case. However, she did not examine any witness in her defence.

6. The learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2015, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-State.

7. The learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a very slip-shod and perfunctory manner. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has discarded the testimonies o