Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Romesh Verma, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Basant Singh - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 472 of 2015
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G.
For the Respondent:Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

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 witnesses, and missing exhibits.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29, 61, 85 and 42 - Recovery of charas from rucksack during vehicle check on patrol - Appeal against acquittal - Contradictions among official witnesses on mode of reaching spot (vehicle or on foot), non-association of independent witnesses despite busy highway, prior information about contraband not recorded in writing, failure to produce seal and vehicle log book, inconsistencies in spot map and photographs preparation - Trial court acquitted holding prosecution failed to prove case - High Court upheld acquittal observing trial court's view possible and not perverse. (Paras 30-46)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference limited; appellate court to interfere only if trial court's view perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or no two reasonable views possible - Double presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal. (Paras 22-28)

Facts of the case:
Police party on patrolling duty signalled vehicle to stop, checked rucksack in lap of passenger, recovered charas weighing 2 kg 500 grams sealed with seal impression, sent for analysis. Trial court acquitted accused charged under Section 20 due to evidentiary lapses and contradictions. State appealed.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, procedural non-compliance and absence of corroborative evidence linking accused to contraband.

Issues: Whether procedural safeguards under NDPS Act complied with; credibility of official testimonies amid contradictions; justification for non-association of independent witnesses; scope of appellate interference in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal not perverse as prosecution failed to establish guilt through reliable evidence; contradictions on fundamental aspects, unrecorded prior information violating Section 42, busy location allowing independent witnesses negate case; suspicion cannot substitute proof.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. prosecution alleges 2.5kg charas recovery from accused's rucksack in vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellate interference in acquittal limited unless perverse or impossible view. (Para 7 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. official witnesses testify to recovery, sealing, dispatch with noted inconsistencies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. contradictions in police testimonies on vehicle, spot, photos undermine credibility. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. section 42 ndps violation; no independent witnesses or possession proof fatal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
6. acquittal upheld for prosecution failure to prove guilt beyond doubt. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal, as passed by the learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, dated 27.3.2015, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted in case FIR No. 161/2009, dated 21.12.2009, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi under Sections 20, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act).

2. The facts, as enumerated by the prosecution, are that on 21.12.2009, ASI Ramesh Prasher, ASI Amar Nath, HC Bhim Singh, Constable Ravi Kumar, Constable Bhup Singh, Constable Himmat Ram and Lady Constable Gita Devi were present at Jhalogi for the purpose of patrolling. At about 4:15 P.M., in the afternoon, one Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-38-0615 came from Banjar side. The Investigating Officer ASI Ramesh Prasher tried to stop the vehicle and the vehicle got stopped at some distance. Name of the driver was asked by the I.O. and the driver of the vehicle told his name to be Yashpal, son of Ravinder Dutt resident of Tud, P.O. Bhugnara, Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra. Along with driver on the next seat, one person, namely, Basant Singh, son of Sh. Nathu Ram, resident of Village Banoh, P.O. Panjahada, Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra was having one rucksack, black and white in colour, in his lap. The aforesaid rucksack was having four zips and after opening the same, one polythene bag, on which ‘Mayur was written, containing black substance in the form of sticks and balls was found. As per experience of the I.O. the recovered substance was charas, which on weighing was found to be 2 kg 500 grams. Thereafter, the recovered contraband was again put in polythene bag and thereafter sealed in parcel with seal impression ‘Y’ at eight places. Specimen of seal impression was taken separately. ASI Ramesh Prasher filled NCB-I form, in triplicate and the seal impression was also embossed thereon. After taking into possession the case property, the I.O. sent ruqua Ext. PW4/B through PW3 Constable Bhup Singh to Police Station Aut, on the basis of which, an FIR came to be registered. The I.O. prepared the spot map and took the photographs.

3. During investigating, the case property was sent to SFSL Junga for chemical analysis and on receipt of the SFSL report and after completing all codal formalities, final report was filed in the court.

4. During the trial before the learned court below, one of the accused persons, namely, Yashpal, died and the proceedings against him were abated. The accused (respondent herein) was charged for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him and claimed himself to be innocent. However, the respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-State to