In NDPS acquittal appeals, courts interfere only if perverse; discrepancies in police evidence, non-association of available independent witnesses, seal issues, and custody gaps justify upholding acquittal under double innocence presumption.

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment, dated 17.08.2015, passed by learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2014, whereby, the accused-Shering Dorje (respondent herein) was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). On 13.01.2014, a police team was on routine patrol duty towards Jai Nalla and had laid nakka there. Police spotted the accused coming on a motorcycle, having registration No. HP 39-2290, and on being signaled to stop by the police, he stopped his vehicle 15 meters from the police party. Thereafter, the accused took out some article from the dickey of his motorcycle and threw the same by the side of the road. On the basis of suspicion, the accused nabbed was asked about the article which he threw, but he could not give any satisfactory reply and rather seemed perplexed. The accused had, in fact, thrown a black carry bag, in which the police found round shaped black substance, which was wrapped in a transparent plastic. The aforesaid recovered substance was found to be charas. The place was secluded and no independent witness was available at that time, therefore, Constable Nitish and HC Krishan Lal were associated as witnesses and in their presence the recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 1.572 kgs. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., NCB form, in triplicate was filled in, statements of the witnesses were recorded, case property was taken in possession and the spot map was prepared. Rukka was sent to police station, through Constable Nitish, whereupon FIR against the accused was registered. Personal search of the accused was conducted and he was arrested. Motorcycle of the accused was also taken into possession. Sample of recovered contraband was sent for scientific analysis to FSL, Junga, and on being analyzed, contents of the same were opined to be charas. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge- sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined nine witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein he claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. However, in defence, he did not examine any witness.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 17.08.2015 acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State.

5. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon mis-appreciation of evidence, which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice, as such the same is liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner and the impugned jud