High Court Upholds NDPS Acquittal: Unreliable Police Testimony and Doubts in Prosecution Case Lead to Dismissal of State Appeal - 2025-03-08

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case, Citing Unreliable Police Testimony

Shimla, H.P. – In a judgment delivered by Justice SushilKukreja , the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the unreliability of police witness testimonies and significant doubts cast on the prosecution's version of events.

Background: The State's Appeal Against Acquittal

The State had appealed against the acquittal of Pratap Singh , who was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that on January 7, 2012, police recovered 3.750 kg of charas from Singh 's possession near Balag Kainchi, Theog. The trial court acquitted Singh on February 26, 2015, leading to the State's appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).

Prosecution and Defence Arguments

The prosecution, led by the Senior Additional Advocate General, argued that the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly by focusing on the non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act concerning personal search. They contended that the recovery was from a bag, not a personal search, thus Section 50 was not applicable. The State asserted that the testimonies of police witnesses were consistent and should have been believed.

Conversely, the defense, represented by the Senior Counsel, maintained that the trial court had rightly assessed the facts and law. They argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, and the judgment of acquittal required no intervention.

Court's Analysis: Scrutinizing Evidence and Principles of Acquittal Appeals

Justice Kukreja , presiding over the case, reiterated the established legal principles governing appeals against acquittals. Citing numerous Supreme Court precedents including Muralidhar alias Gidda & another Vs. State of Karnatka and Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & another , the High Court emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused after acquittal.

The judgment highlighted that an appellate court must be slow to disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the findings are palpably wrong, based on an erroneous view of law, or likely to cause grave injustice. The court noted that if two reasonable views are possible based on evidence, the acquittal should stand.

> "if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."

Key Flaw: Unreliable Testimony of Police Witnesses

While the High Court noted that the trial court's initial reasoning regarding Section 50 of the NDPS Act was “misconceived” – clarifying that Section 50 applies to personal searches and not bag searches as per Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar – it ultimately sided with the acquittal based on a different ground.

The pivotal point in the High Court's decision was the unreliability of the police witnesses' testimonies . The prosecution's case rested heavily on the statements of three police officials (PW-8, PW-9, PW-10), who claimed to have travelled by bus from Shimla to Chailla on January 7, 2012, and apprehended the accused.

However, the defence presented compelling documentary evidence, including official records from the Meteorological Centre, Police Department, and HRTC (Himachal Road Transport Corporation), along with news reports, proving that no HRTC buses plied on the Shimla-Rohru route via Fagu on January 7, 2012, due to heavy snowfall and road blockage.

> "The aforesaid documentary evidence clearly shows that no HRTC buses had plied on Shimla-Rohru route via Fagu on 07.01.2012 due to blockage of road as a result of heavy snow fall."

This evidence directly contradicted the police witnesses' claims of bus travel. The court noted that the Investigating Officer (PW-10) even denied certified copies of daily diary registers during cross-examination, further damaging his credibility.

Court's Conclusion: Prosecution Failed to Prove Case Beyond Doubt

Based on the significant discrepancies and the proven falsehood of the police witnesses' travel claims, the High Court concluded that their presence at the alleged spot of recovery was highly doubtful. Finding their testimonies "totally unreliable and untrustworthy," the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal, upholding the acquittal granted by the trial court. The judgment reinforces the principle that while police testimony can be credible, it must withstand scrutiny, especially when challenged by robust evidence. In this case, the demonstrable falsehood in the police's core narrative led to the affirmation of the acquittal, ensuring the accused was not convicted on doubtful evidence.