Himachal Pradesh HC: Material Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence Regarding Drug Recovery from Tyre Justify Upholding Acquittal under NDPS Act

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case, Cites Glaring Contradictions in Prosecution Story

Shimla , HP - The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the acquittal of Hardev Singh , who was accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The division bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja , dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh 's appeal against the trial court's 2014 judgment, citing material contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of charas.

The judgment, decided on May 29, 2025, reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case dates back to February 23, 2014, when a police party on patrol near Sheetala Mata temple stopped a Mahindra Tempo driven by Hardev Singh . Allegedly, Singh could not produce vehicle documents and appeared perplexed. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Yog Raj, suspecting something amiss with the spare tyre (stepney), took the vehicle to the H.R.T.C. workshop at Bashing. There, mechanics purportedly opened the stepney and recovered 1 Kg and 33 grams of charas.

Following an investigation, Hardev Singh was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. However, the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, acquitted him on November 25, 2014, in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2014. The State subsequently appealed this acquittal.

Arguments Presented

The State of H.P. , represented by Senior Additional Advocates General, contended that the trial court's judgment was based on "hypothetical reasoning" and "flimsy grounds." They argued that the trial court had wrongly ignored substantial oral and documentary evidence, focusing instead on minor contradictions in the statements of official witnesses.

Conversely, counsel for the respondent, Hardev Singh , argued that the trial court's decision was a result of proper appreciation of the material on record and was well-founded in law. They highlighted "major contradictions" in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies as a key reason for upholding the acquittal.

High Court's Scrutiny and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously re-examined the evidence and reiterated established legal principles governing appeals against acquittal.

Standard for Appeals Against Acquittal

The bench emphasized the "double presumption in favour of the accused" – the initial presumption of innocence and its reinforcement by an acquittal. Citing precedents like Muralidhar alias Gidda & another Vs. State of Karnatka and H.D. Sundara & others vs. State of Karnataka , the Court noted that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if the trial court's view is a possible one, even if another view could be taken. Interference is warranted only if the trial court's conclusions are "palpably wrong," based on an "erroneous view of the law," or likely to result in "grave injustice."

Material Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The Court found significant contradictions, particularly in the testimony of PW-1 Kanshi Ram, an independent witness and H.R.T.C. employee, when compared with the police witnesses (PW-9 ASI Dhiraj Singh and PW-11 S.I. Yog Raj, the Investigating Officer).

Pivotal excerpts from the judgment highlight these discrepancies: > "PW-1 Kanshi Ram, the sole independent witness...deposed in his cross-examination that the tyre was opened and its tube was outside when he alongwith other employees came to the workshop and even the rim was inside the tyre in open condition ..."

This directly contradicted the police officers' (PW-9 and PW-11) assertion that the mechanics removed the stepney and checked it with tools before finding the charas. The rukka (Ex.PW-9/A) also stated mechanics opened the stepney.

The Court observed: > "The statement of this witness [PW-1 Kanshi Ram] makes the case of prosecution doubtful, as when the tyre, rim and tube were already open in the workshop even before the arrival of team of mechanics, what was the necessity to get the tyre checked from the mechanic..."

Doubts Regarding Search and Seizure Procedure

Further infirmities noted by the Court included: * The Investigating Officer did not get the already open tyre checked at any of the 15-20 mechanic shops available en route from the place of interception to the H.R.T.C. workshop. * Uncertainty regarding the identity of the spare tyre (Ex. P-7) presented in court, as police witnesses admitted its condition (broken iron wires) differed from when it was allegedly seized. * Failure to associate independent witnesses from the busy marketplace where the accused was initially intercepted. * Two other H.R.T.C. mechanics, Beni Madhav and Trilok Chand , who were part of the team that allegedly opened the tyre, were given up by the prosecution as having been "won over by the accused," further weakening the prosecution's case.

The Court cited State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabir Singh , distinguishing between minor discrepancies and material contradictions that "go to the root of the case."

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the prosecution "failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt," the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's "well reasoned judgment of acquittal."

The Court stated: > "Thus, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent; and the well reasoned judgment of acquittal needs no interference as the same is the result of appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the bail bonds of Hardev Singh were discharged. As per the judgment, under the provisions of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondent was directed to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- to ensure his appearance before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed.