HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case, Citing 'Material Contradictions' in Police Statements & Lack of Independent Witnesses - 2025-09-02

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Charas Case, Cites Flaws in Police Investigation

Shimla, HP - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of possessing 1.2 kg of charas, citing "material contradictions" in the testimonies of police witnesses and a "fatal" failure to associate independent witnesses in the investigation.

A Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the 2015 acquittal of Kaul Ram by the Special Judge, Kinnaur. The court ruled that the trial court's decision was a "reasonable view" based on the evidence and did not warrant interference.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case dates back to December 28, 2008, when a police party on patrol duty apprehended Kaul Ram near Sarahan bifurcation. According to the police, Ram became perplexed upon seeing them and tried to flee. A search of the polythene bag he was carrying allegedly revealed a cloth bag containing 1.2 kg of charas.

Following an investigation, Ram was charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. However, on March 27, 2015, the trial court acquitted him, prompting the state to appeal to the High Court.

Arguments in the High Court

The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. J.S. Guleria, argued that the trial court had appreciated the evidence in a "slipshod and perfunctory manner." It was contended that minor contradictions in witness statements were given undue weightage and that the testimonies of police officials should have been considered sufficient for a conviction.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondent, Kaul Ram, defended the trial court's judgment, asserting that it was based on a proper appreciation of facts and law and did not require interference.

Court's Scrutiny Reveals Major Discrepancies

In its detailed judgment, the High Court emphasized the legal principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a finding of acquittal, as the accused benefits from a "double presumption of innocence."

The bench meticulously scrutinized the testimonies of the key police witnesses (PW-1, PW-5, and PW-8) and found numerous inconsistencies that rendered the prosecution's story "highly suspicious." The court highlighted several key contradictions:

• Mode of Travel: Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of how the police party travelled to and from the spot—one claimed they used a private vehicle, while another stated they took a bus and then walked.
• Timeline of Events: There were significant discrepancies regarding the time and place where the case file was handed over to the Investigating Officer after the FIR was registered. Statements varied on whether this occurred at the spot at 8:00 p.m., at Nirmand Bus Stand at 6:30 p.m., or in Nirmand Bazaar at 7:45 p.m.
• Presence of Witnesses: The arrest memo recorded the presence of a key witness (PW-5) at 5:40 p.m., but evidence suggested he had already left the spot with the rukka (police memo) at 5:10 p.m.

Pivotal Observation: "...there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and various other infirmities, which go to the root of the case, as rightly noticed by the learned Trial Court and the same render the prosecution case highly suspicious."

Failure to Join Independent Witnesses Called 'Fatal'

A crucial factor in the court's decision was the failure of the Investigating Officer to associate any independent witnesses, despite their availability. The court noted admissions from police witnesses that shops and residential houses were located nearby at Bagipul, yet no effort was made to call anyone from there to witness the search and seizure.

The bench concluded that this omission was "fatal to the case of prosecution" and had "caused miscarriage of justice to the accused."

"...we are of the opinion that non-joining of independent witnesses by prosecution at the time of preparation of search and seizure memo despite the availability of independent witnesses has caused miscarriage of justice to the accused."

Final Verdict

Reaffirming the principle that "suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof," the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Kaul Ram beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the trial court's judgment to be a "reasonable view based on the evidence on record" and not perverse. The State's appeal was dismissed, and Kaul Ram's acquittal was confirmed.