NDPS Acquittal Upheld When Police Testimonies Are Riddled with Contradictions, View Taken by Trial Court is a Possible One: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-30

Legal Awareness & Information.

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in Major Charas Bust, Cites "Serious Doubts" in Police Witness Testimonies

Shimla, HP - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of three men accused of possessing nearly 5 kilograms of charas, reaffirming that a conviction cannot stand when the prosecution's case is built on contradictory and unreliable police testimonies.

A division bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja upheld the 2014 judgment of the Special Judge-I, Shimla, which had acquitted Pankaj Verma, Satya Nand Sharma, and Govind of charges under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The High Court concluded that the trial court's decision was a "reasonable view" and not perverse.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case dates back to April 11, 2013, when a police party led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police was on patrol near the HIPA gate on Mashobra road. Around 10 p.m., they allegedly spotted the three accused who, upon seeing the police, became perplexed and attempted to flee.

Upon apprehending them, the police claimed to have recovered a total of 4.910 kilograms of charas from carry bags held by each of the accused: * Pankaj Verma: 1 kg 800 grams * Satya Nand Sharma: 1 kg 570 grams * Govind: 1 kg 540 grams

Following the seizure, the police completed procedural formalities and filed a charge sheet. However, the trial court acquitted all three accused on December 3, 2014, prompting the State of Himachal Pradesh to file the present appeal.

Arguments in the High Court

The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that the trial court had set "unrealistic standards" to evaluate the evidence and had wrongly given undue weight to minor contradictions in the witness statements.

Conversely, the defense counsel argued that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that its judgment of acquittal was sound in fact and law, requiring no interference.

Court's Analysis: A Prosecution Story Plagued by Contradictions

In its detailed judgment, the High Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence, particularly the testimonies of the five key police witnesses. The Court found their accounts to be riddled with material contradictions that went to the root of the case and created "serious doubt qua the veracity of the prosecution story."

Some of the key discrepancies highlighted by the Court were:

• Contradictory Scene of Apprehension: Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the police action. One stated the police jeep was moving when they spotted the accused, another claimed the police were stationary at a 'nakka' (checkpoint) for 45 minutes, while others said no 'nakka' was laid at all.
• Doubt over Key Documents: The sample seal impression memo (Ex. PW-1/A), a crucial piece of evidence, was claimed to have been signed by witnesses and the accused. However, the document produced in court bore no such signatures, and the police witnesses could not explain the discrepancy.
• Confusion over Investigating Officer: There was ambiguity as to who was leading the investigation. While Dy.SP Dinesh Sharma (PW-11) was the senior officer, he admitted to not writing any documents or recording witness statements. Another witness identified a different officer (SI Sandeep) as the Investigating Officer, yet SI Sandeep was never examined in court.
• Failure to Examine Key Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine HHC Jawahar, a signatory to the recovery memo, and SI Sandeep, who allegedly prepared the memo, without providing any plausible reason.

The bench noted, "after the close scrutiny of the statements of the above police/official witnesses, we are left with no other option, but to disbelieve their testimonies, as there are contradictions in their testimonies, which create a serious doubt qua the veracity of the prosecution story."

Upholding the Principles of Acquittal Appeals

The High Court heavily relied on established Supreme Court precedents regarding appeals against acquittal. The bench reiterated that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with an acquittal because the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the trial court's verdict.

The judgment emphasized that interference is only justified if the trial court's findings are "palpably wrong," "perverse," or would result in a "grave injustice." If two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the view favouring acquittal must be upheld.

Final Decision

Finding that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, the High Court dismissed the state's appeal. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, stating, "howsoever strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof."

The bail bonds of the acquitted individuals were discharged, bringing the decade-long legal battle to a close.