Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA
State of H.P – Appellant
Versus
Kanshi Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against ndps acquittal for charas possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. limited interference in appeals against acquittal. (Para 7 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 3. raiding party testimonies reveal recovery contradictions. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. incomplete chain of custody for seized contraband. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. defense alleges false implication by police. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. prosecution fails due to evidentiary contradictions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43) |
| 7. acquittal upheld; proof beyond doubt required. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 10.03.2015, whereby the present respondents have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2009, under Section 20 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’) in FIR No. 199 of 2008 dated 18th December, 2008 registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2008, SI/SHO Vijay Sain was on patr
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act dismissed due to prosecution lapses including no independent witnesses, material contradictions in evidence, sample weight variations, and chain of custody gap....
Appeal against NDPS acquittal dismissed upholding trial court due to contradictions in official testimonies, document/FIR anomalies, weight discrepancies creating reasonable doubt; appellate interfer....
Appellate interference in acquittal limited to perverse findings or sole guilt view; upheld where contradictions, non-examination of independent witnesses, and custody lapses render prosecution case ....
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act: Interference only if trial court's view perverse or impossible; here, witness inconsistencies, procedural lapses justify upholding acquittal.
Acquittal under NDPS Act upheld in appeal due to Section 50 non-compliance (invalid third option, improper waiver), witness inconsistencies, lack of independent witnesses on busy highway, and plausib....
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act dismissed; trial court's view upheld as not perverse due to witness contradictions, procedural lapses like unrecorded prior information, no independent witness....
Acquittal under NDPS Section 20 upheld in appeal; no interference absent perversity where independent witnesses turn hostile denying recovery and contradictions undermine prosecution evidence.
Appeal against acquittal – No interference is required with appeal against acquittal merely because some other view is possible.
The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfe....
Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal if trial court's view possible despite contradictions in police evidence and hostile independent witness, as suspicion cannot replace proof beyond....
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
