SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, JJ.
Bhoop Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2020
Decided On : 31-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate legal aid counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General.

Material contradictions in prosecution witnesses, non-examination of material witness, hostile independent witness, and procedural inconsistencies entitle accused to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal under NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Conviction for possession of commercial quantity (1.300 kg cannabis) - Recovery from bag thrown by accused on seeing police patrol - Trial court sentenced to 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- - Appeal - Material contradictions in official witnesses on raiding party composition and presence - Non-examination of material witness listed in patrol entry - Independent witness turned hostile, not confronted with prior statement - Inconsistencies in procedural documents, timelines, rukka preparation - Overwritings/cuttings in records - Held: Contradictions go to root, create reasonable doubt - Prosecution case shattered - Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. (Paras 32-42, 44-50)

(B) Criminal Trial - Prosecution evidence - Interested/official witnesses - When impaired by infirmities, contradictions, exclusive reliance unsafe - Non-examination of material witness draws adverse inference - Minor discrepancies tolerable, but material ones fatal. (Paras 34-38, 43, 46-49)

(C) Benefit of doubt - Two views possible on evidence, accused entitled - Stringent proof required in stringent punishment cases. (Paras 43, 47)

Facts of the case:
Police patrol party on traffic check noticed pedestrian turning back perplexed, throwing bag uphill, fleeing; apprehended after 15-20 steps. Bag contained greenish-black sticks of cannabis (1.300 kg by electronic scale), sealed with nine 'M' seals after weighing in presence of vehicle driver as witness. Rukka sent for FIR registration. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses; accused denied involvement. Trial court convicted; appeal challenging on contradictions.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution story improbable due to multiple material contradictions casting doubt; appeal succeeds, accused acquitted.

Issues: Whether contradictions in raiding party presence, witness non-examination, hostile independent witness, document inconsistencies vitiate prosecution case proving conscious possession beyond doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Material contradictions/inconsistencies in core witnesses, unexplained procedural variations, withholding material witness fatal; benefit of doubt to accused when prosecution fails stringent proof burden despite official testimonies.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted and released forthwith.

Table of Content
1. appeal against ndps section 20 conviction. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 28)
2. recovery of 1.3 kg charas from accused. (Para 2 , 3)
3. raiding party details recovery procedures. (Para 9 , 10 , 24 , 25)
4. chain custody seals maintained intact. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. independent witness turns hostile. (Para 26 , 27)
6. parties argue evidence contradictions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
7. raiding party composition discrepancies. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
8. non-examination of witness fatal. (Para 35)
9. hostile witness undermines prosecution case. (Para 36 , 37)
10. timeline procedural contradictions material. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
11. contradictions grant benefit of doubt. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
12. acquittal on appeal ordered. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction as passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, on 15.11.2019, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’ Act), and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.09.2016 Head Constable Raj Pal, alongwith HHC Krishan Lal and HHG Reena Thakur was on patrolling and traffic checking duty. When at about 2:15 p.m., they were checking the vehicles coming from Manikaran and Bhuntar side, at Jachhani, one person was coming on foot from Manikaran side and on seeing the police party on the spot, he got perplexed and immediately he turned back. He threw bag, which he was carrying in his hand, towards upper side of the road. On this, suspicion arose and the Investigating Officer H.C. Raj Pal with the help of other officials nabbed the said person when he tried to flee away at a distance of about 15 to 20 steps. The said person was scared and when the name of the said person was inquired, he told his name to be Bhoop Singh son of Dhani Ram r/o Village Balon, Post Office Bahu, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., aged about 22 years old. At the same time, one vehicle came from Manikaran to Bhuntar side. The driver was signalled by Head Constable Raj Pal to stop the vehicle and after receiving signal he stopped the vehicle on the side of the road. The number of the vehicle was found HP43-A 5050 and on asking the driver disclosed his name to be Ajay Kishore son of Chand Kishore r/o Ward No.4 Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

3. The said Sh. Ajay Kishore was informed about the entire facts. In front of Ajay Kishore and HHC Krishan Lal, Bhoop Singh was inquired about the throwing of bag qua which no satisfactory answer could be given by him. Ajay Kishore (driver) and HHC Krishan Lal were made spot witnesses. The bag which was thrown by Bhoop Singh (appellant) was having two strips with a zip on the top of the bag. Outside the bag, English word ‘BONKHOSH Sella Basmati Rice No.1121’ was written. In the presence of the witnesses, the said bag was opened and on opening the same, another green/bluish coloured knotted carry bag was found. After opening the same, black coloured substance was found which was in the shape of sticks wrapped in transparent wrappers. On the basis of the experience and smelling, it was found to be cannabis/charas. When the appellant was inquired, no satisfactory answer could be given by him. When the recovered substance was weighed with electronic weighing machine, it was found to be 1.300 kgs. cannabis. The carry bag was wrapped and was put inside the bag as it is, and the zip of the same was also closed. It was wrapped in a cloth parcel which was appended with nine ‘M’ seals. The NCB -1 form in triplicate was filled up and the specimens of sample seal were taken at four different places on a piece of cloth. T











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top