Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Romesh Verma, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Govind Ram - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2015
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr. N. K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karanveer Singh Thakur, Advocate

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 unreliable.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Appeal against acquittal - Recovery of 3 kg 700 grams contraband from leather bag in lap of passenger on bus seat during routine vehicle checking by police party - Trial court acquitted finding contradictions in police statements on boarding bus, weighing substance, filling forms, non-recovery of bus ticket or logbook, discrepancies in contraband description vs laboratory report, non-examination of independent passengers despite 9-10 present, material witnesses (bus driver, conductor) given up as won over, lapses in case property custody and sealing - High Court holds trial court view possible, not perverse, prosecution case infirm. (Paras 2, 15-59)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope limited; interference only if judgment perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no two reasonable views possible and only guilt-proving view emerges - Double presumption of innocence; if two views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed. (Paras 10-14)

Facts of the case:
Police party with weighing machine and camera on checking duty stopped private bus with 9-10 passengers, noticed person on seat 30 perplexed with brown leather bag, recovered grey shawl concealing black then red bag containing black hard substance identified as contraband weighing 3 kg 700 grams, sealed with seal impression, NCB forms filled, but procedural lapses and contradictions led to trial court acquittal; state appeals.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence unreliable due to material contradictions in official testimonies, failure to associate or examine independent witnesses, doubts on chain of custody with unexplained delays in laboratory dispatch/receipt and custody periods, non-production of seal for verification.

Issues: Whether trial court acquittal perverse; sufficiency of prosecution evidence marred by inconsistencies and non-examination of material witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: Withholding material witnesses fatal, especially where available; police testimonies alone insufficient if contradictory and untrustworthy; appellate court not to substitute view if trial court's possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against acquittal in ndps case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties argue on trial court's acquittal findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. limited interference in appeals against acquittal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. prosecution witnesses detail recovery and procedures. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. prosecution evidence full of contradictions and inconsistencies. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. withholding independent witnesses fatal to prosecution. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
7. case property handling raises suspicion. (Para 48 , 49)
8. acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)

JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, Judge

The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. on 25.03.2015, whereby, respondent has been acquitted of the charges in case FIR No. 122/2014 dated 12.04.2014, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The story, as projected by the prosecution against the respondent, is that on 12.4.2014 at about9.25 a.m. H.C Virender Singh, alongwith Constable Yog Raj, Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable Bharat Bhushan, was present at place near Behi, in connection with nakabandi and for the purpose of routine checking alongwith the electronic weighing machine and camera. At that time, one private bus bearing No. HP-73-A-1316 in the name of ‘Sahil Bus Service’ came from Chanwas to Chamba. The said bus was stopped for the purpose of checking and during the process, on seat No.30, a person was sitting with a leather bag brown in colour in his lap. The said person, on seeing the police officials got perplexed. On seat No. 41, the conductor of the bus namely Vijay kumar was sitting and he was kept as a witness and the driver of the bus namely Subhash Kumar was called at the back. On inquiry, the said person told his name as Govind Ram son of Sh. Hoshiara Ram, r/o Village Bhaluie, P.O. Lesuie, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, aged 32 years old. After opening the leather bag, it was found containing one shawl and inside the same one black colour bag of two strips was hidden and after opening it, black colour hard substance in the shape of sticks, round bundles was found. On the basis of experience and smell, it was found to be charas/cannabis. The said substance was weighed with weighing machine and it was found to be 3 Kilo 700 grams of charas/cannabis. The said substance was kept in the same black bag and wrapped with one cloth by putting seal ‘K’. The NCB form in triplicate was filled up. The seal was handed over to Vijay Kumar.

3. On completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the accused in the Court for the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act.

4. During the trial before the learned court below, accused (respondent herein) was charged for an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide which he denied all the incriminating material and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. However, accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The learned Special Judge(II), Chamba, H.P. vide its judgment dated 25.03.2015 after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the accused, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant- State to file the instant appeal.

7. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are totally perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advoc