Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Of on 3 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2015
Reserved on 13.11.2025
.
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
___________________________________
State of H.P. ...Appellant.
Versus
of
Govind Ram ...Respondent.
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Advocate General.
For the respondent:
Mr. N. K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Karanveer Singh
Thakur, Advocate.
4.__________________________________
Romesh Verma, Judge
The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. on 25.03.2015, whereby, respondent has been acquitted of the charges in case FIR No. 122/2014 dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS2 2025:HHC:42172 ) 12.04.2014, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. under Section 20 of .
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The story, as projected by the prosecution of against the respondent, is that on 12.4.2014 at about 9.25 a.m. H.C Virender Singh, alongwith Constable rt Yog Raj, Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable Bharat Bhushan, was present at place near Behi, in connection with nakabandi and for the purpose of routine checking alongwith the electronic weighing machine and camera. At that time, one private bus bearing No. HP-73-A-1316 in the name of 'Sahil Bus Service' came from Chanwas to Chamba. The said bus was stopped for the purpose of checking and during the process, on seat No.30, a person was sitting with a leather bag brown in colour in his lap. The said person, on seeing the police officials got perplexed. On seat No. 41, the conductor of the bus namely Vijay ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:42172 ) Kumar was sitting and he was kept as a witness and the driver of the bus namely Subhash Kumar was .
called at the back. On inquiry, the said person told his name as Govind Ram son of Sh. Hoshiara Ram, r/o Village Bhaluie, P.O. Lesuie, Tehsil Churah, District of Chamba, aged 32 years old. After opening the leather bag, it was found containing one shawl and inside the rt same one black colour bag of two strips was hidden and after opening it, black colour hard substance in the shape of sticks, round bundles was found. On the basis of experience and smell, it was found to be charas/cannabis. The said substance was weighed with weighing machine and it was found to be 3 Kilo 700 grams of charas/cannabis. The said substance was kept in the same black bag and wrapped with one cloth by putting seal 'K'. The NCB form in triplicate was filled up. The seal was handed over to Vijay Kumar.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS4 2025:HHC:42172 )
3. On completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the accused in the Court .
for the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act.
4. During the trial before the learned court of below, accused (respondent herein) was charged for an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act., rt to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide which he denied all the incriminating material and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. However, accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. The learned Special Judge(II), Chamba, H.P. vide its judgment dated 25.03.2015 after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:42172 ) the accused, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-
State to file the instant appeal.
.
7. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are totally perverse and, of therefore, deserve to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior rt Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karanveer Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and urged that since the same is based on facts and evidence, it warrants no interference.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case in detail.
10. The legal proposition with respect to the scope of interference in the matter of appeal of acquittal has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS6 2025:HHC:42172 )
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2119/2010, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. .
Kistoora Ram, decided on 28.7.2022, has held as under:-
8. "The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very of limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or rt perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.
Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433 has held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS7 2025:HHC:42172 )
23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka 6, a .
Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference of in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:(SCC pp.163-64, rt para 38-41) "38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v.
State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471: (2022) 2 SCC(Cri)31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below :
(SCC pp.482-83, para 29) "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:42172 ) acquittal in the following words:
(Chandrappa case7, SCC p.432,para
42) .
'42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
of (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon rt which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 puts no limitation restriction on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3)Variousexpressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons","good and sufficient grounds" "very strong circumstances","distortedconclusios "glaring mistakes",etc. Are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language"
to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:42172 ) of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
rt Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions 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.' "
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v.
State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised theprinciples governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:42172 ) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
.
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against of acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by rt the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:42172 ) the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal .
suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view of consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
24. It could thus be seen that it is a rt settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/ omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS12 2025:HHC:42172 )
13. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund and another Versus The State of Madhya .
Pradesh 2024 (4) SCALE, 513 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"9. Apart from that, it is to be of noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by rt the Appellate Court is very well crystallized.Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible,interference with the same would not be warrated Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below:
"13.In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS
13 2025:HHC:42172 ) "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the .
appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial of justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty rt of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded."
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:42172 ) court should not interfere with the same."
.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Dy. 23115/2025, titled as Brijesh Singh vs. State of U.P., decided on 18.6.2025, has held of as under:-
"Law is well settled that
rt
interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the Courts below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused. In the present case, we do not find any view other than that taken by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges is permissible."
15. Coming to the factual matrix of the case. In order to corroborate its case, the prosecution has examined PW-10 HC Virender Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that he was posted as ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:42172 ) Investigating Officer in SIU, Chamba since January, 2013. On 12-4-2014, he alongwith Constables Yog .
Raj, Sunil Kumar and Bharat Bhushan, laid a nakka at place Koti and to this effect a rapat Ex. PW-10/A was entered. He was present there with I.O. bag of containing electronic scale and official camera. They were checking the vehicles in a routine manner. At rt about 9.25 a.m. in the morning, a private bus in the name of Sahil bus service bearing No.HP 73A-1316 came from Chanwas to Chamba and was signaled to stop. While checking the said bus, they reached near seat No.30 where a person holding a leather bag in his lap was sitting, who on seeing the police got perplexed. On the basis of the suspicion, driver and conductor who was sitting on seat No.41, were called near seat No.30. The person was interrogated and thereafter he disclosed his name Govind Ram son of Sh. Hoshiar Singh, r/o village Bhaluie Tehsil Churah, Distt. Chamba, HP. On the basis of the suspicion when ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:42172 ) the bag of the accused person was opened, a grey coloured shawl, concealing black coloured bag was .
found. When the zip of the black coloured bag was opened, then a red colour carry bag was recovered.
Inside the red colour carry bag, a black coloured hard of substance in the form of the slides and balls was recovered and after smelling it was found Cannabis/ rt Charas. The said substance was weighed with the help of the electronic scale and after weighing, it was found to be 3 kilo 700 grams. The cannabis was again put in the red coloured bag and this bag was put in the black coloured bag in the same manner. The leather bag was put in a parcel and sealed with five seal impression of 'K'. NCB forms in triplicate was filled by him on the spot. Sample of the seal was also taken on NCB forms in triplicate Ex. PW-9/C. The specimen seal impressions were taken on a separate piece of cloth Ex. PW-1/A. The cannabis was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/B in the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:42172 ) presence of the witnesses Constable Yog Raj, conductor Vijay Kumar and driver Subhash Kumar.
.
PW-10 further stated that he and the respondent also put their signatures on the memo. He stated that he alongwith witnesses also put signatures on the white of piece of cloth Ex. PW-1/A and also put signatures on the parcel. He sent the rukka Ex. PW-10/B through rt Constable Bharat Bhushan to Police Station Sadar Chamba and also sent a copy of rukka through the aforesaid Constable to S. P.Chamba. Spot map Ex.
PW-10/C as per the factual position was prepared. He alongwith accused, police officials and case property reached in the Police Station at 3 PM. Photographs of the spot were also taken which are Ext. C1 and C2. He handed over the parcel containing case property, NCB forms in triplicate, sample of the seal, case file of the accused to the Inspector/SHO for resealing. After re-
sealing the case property by the Inspector/SHO Tilak Raj, the file was handed over to him alongwith re-seal ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:42172 ) memo Ext. PW-7/B and he deposited the articles recovered from the possession of the accused person .
to the MHC of Police Station.
16. In the cross examination, PW 10 stated that he proceeded from the Police Station, SIU, Chamba at of about 7:30 a.m. He checked 5-6 vehicles at the spot.
He signalled the bus to stop. From the front door of rt the window, Constable Bharat Bhushan and Constable Yog Raj boarded the bus and he alongwith Constable Sunil Kumar boarded the bus from the back door. The bus was having 41-42 seating capacity, but in the bus there were only 9-10 passengers. PW 10 stated that he searched all the passengers in the bus but except the accused no other passengers were holding their luggage in their laps and it took hardly ten minutes to check the entire bus. He further stated that seat No.31 of the bus was vacant and seat No.29 of the bus was also vacant. He checked the bags of the passengers.
He further stated that he weighed the Charas/ ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:42172 ) Cannabis at about 10.00 a.m. and before he weighed the cannabis, he was writing the seizure memo. He .
filled column No. 1 to 8 of the NCB forms, self stated that he filled FIR number in these columns later on.
Rukka was also prepared by him at 12.05 PM. He did of not know how C. Bharat Bhushan took rukka to the Police Station. PW-10 stated that he had not interrogated rt any of the passengers from the bus during the course of the investigation, except the driver and the conductor. He stated that he had not taken RC of the bus in his possession. He admitted that he filled the description of the case property in the NCB forms as sticks, bundle and balls, whereas, in the FSL report the description of the case property is shown in the form of sticks. He admitted that in Ex.
PW-8/A, there is no reference of seizure memo. He stated that he did not know when the case property was sent to FSL Junga. He did not remember what ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:42172 ) date was written in the special report pertaining to sending the case property to FSL, Junga.
.
17. Constable Yog Raj was examined as PW-1 by the prosecution. He stated that he was posted as General Duty Constable in SIU, Chamba from the of month, Jan 2013 On 12-4-2014, he alongwith C. Sunil Kumar, C. Bharat Bhushan and HC Varinder Singh IO rt of the case alongwith Govt. camera, IO kit proceeded to Behi Bag. At about 9.25 a.m. when they were checking the vehicles on the spot, a private bus in the name 'Sahil Bus Service' bearing No. H.P 73-A-1316 came from Dhanwas to Chamba. The bus was stopped for checking. The police officials boarded into the bus for checking of the passengers and their luggage.
During checking of the bus, a person who was sitting on seat No. 30, got perplexed after seeing the police.
He was having a leather bag in his lap. In the meantime, the IO of this case HC Varinder Kumar called the driver and conductor of the bus and the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 21 2025:HHC:42172 ) accused who was having leather bag in his lap was searched in the presence of driver and conductor and .
other police officials, who were present on the spot.
On interrogation, the accused disclosed his name as Govind Ram son of Sh. Hoshiara Ram, age 32 years, of r/o village Bhaluie, PO Lesuie, Distt. Chamba, HP. On opening the zip of the said bag, one shawl which was rt grey in colour was found. The shawl was searched by the Investigating Officer and on checking, shawl, one another bag was found inside the shawl which was black in colour and on opening the zip of the said bag, one red colour carry bag was found. The said carry bag was also checked by the Investigating Officer in their presence and on opening the same, black coloured hard substance in the shape of sticks/bundles was found. On burning, smelling as well as on the basis of experience, the same was found to be Charas/ cannabis. PW-1 stated that charas was weighed in their presence and the same was ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:42172 ) found to be 3 kilo 700 grams. Thereafter, the recovered Charas was again put into the carry bag and .
the carry bag was put into the same bag from which the charas/ cannabis was recovered and the same was put into a piece of cloth alongwith shawl and the of parcel was sealed with seal impression 'K'. He stated that recovered charas was taken into possession vide rt memo Ext. PW-1/B which bears his signatures as witness and the signatures of Subhash Kumar and conductor Vijay Kumar. He also stated that the accused also signed the same and seal after use was handed over to PW Vijay Kumar. The rukka was prepared and the same was sent to police Station, Sadar Chamba for registration of a case through C. Bharat Bhushan.
18. In the cross examination, PW-1 stated that he got recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C to the I.O. that he proceeded to Behi at 9.25 a.m from SIU, Chamba. He stated that bus reached on ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 23 2025:HHC:42172 ) the spot at 9.25 a.m., and prior to reaching of the bus, they had checked about 5 vehicles. The bus was .
signalled to stop by HC Varinder Singh and at that time 9-10 passengers were traveling in the bus. He stated that from the front door of the bus HC of Varinder Singh and H.C Sunil Kumar boarded the bus and he and Constable Bharat Bhushan boarded the rt bus from its rear side door. He stated that he had carried out the checking of all articles of the passengers at that time and when they came to know that the bag contained some contraband, then Investigating Officer started interrogating the accused and after that they had weighed the Charas.
The charas was weighed by the Investigating Officer of the case at about 10.oo a.m. PW-1 further stated that after stitching parcel containing charas, it was sealed with seal impression "K'. PW-1 admitted that it is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC that the red colour carry bag ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 24 2025:HHC:42172 ) alongwith other brown colour bag was put into the parcel. He stated that he can not tell the exact time .
when the seizure memo was prepared. He further stated that all the proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer inside the bus. After taking of rukka by Constable Bharat Bhusan he himself, driver and conductor of the bus, investigating Officer and rt accused were present on the spot. He stated that personal search of the accused was conducted at about 1.45 p.m. PW-1 denied that he was not present on the spot. He further denied that no photographs were taken on the spot. PW-1 Constable Yog Raj was examined on 22.09.2014 and on the said date Sh. H.S. Dhiman, learned Public Prosecutor for the State made a statement that he gives up Pws Subhash Chand and Vijay Kumar being won over by the accused.
19. Constable Bharat Bhushan No. 410, Police Line Chamba , Distt. Chamba was examined as PW-2.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS25 2025:HHC:42172 ) In his statement, he stated that he was posted as General Duty Constable in SIU Chamba, Distt Chamba, .
HP in the year, 2014. On 12.04.2014 he was associated during investigation. On the said date at about 12.05 p.m, HC Varinder handed over him rukka for of registration of a case. The same was handed over to MHC, P.S. Sadar Chamba. After registration of the case rt MHC handed over the case file to him. He also delivered carbon copy of rukka to S. P.Chamba, Sh.
D. Κ. Choudhary at his residence.
20. In the cross examination, he stated that they proceeded to the spot from Police Station SIU Chamba at about 7.30 a.m and reached on the spot at about 8.30 a.m. He further stated that no proceedings were initiated before leaving the Police Station. The rukka was written by HC Varinder Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. It is further stated by him that he came to Police Station by taking lift from the spot and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 26 2025:HHC:42172 ) was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that rukka was handed over to him by I.O HC .
Varinder Kumar at about 12.05 PM. and when confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Mark-D, wherein it is not so recorded. He of proceeded to spot after delivering the copy of rukka to S. P. Chamba at about 2.05 PM. He denied that no rt rukka was given to him by the Investigating Officer nor he handed over the same to MHC P. S. Sadar Chamba
21. Constable Sanjay Kumar No. 327 SIU Wing.
Chamba, Distt. Chamba, HP. was examined as PW-3 .
In his statement he has stated that he was posted as General Duty Constable in SIU Wing Chamba from July, 2013. On 13.04.2014, the Investigating Officer of this case HC Varinder Kumar handed over him special report of this case to deliver the same to S. P. Chamba.
He also stated that he handed over the same to Additional S. P. Sh. Kulwant Singh at about 2.30 p.m. ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 27 2025:HHC:42172 )
22. In the cross examination PW3 has denied that no special report was handed over to him by the .
Investigating Officer.
23. HHC Bachiter Singh, Police Station, Dalhousie, Chamba was examined as PW-4. He stated of that he remained posted as HHC in Police Station, Chamba from Jan 2014 to May, 2014. On 14.4.2014, rt MHC Kuldeep Kumar handed over to him one sealed parcel sealed with seal impressions K and T (five in numbers each) containing 3 kilo 700 Grams Charas/cannabis alongwith sample seal and covering letters pertaining to this case vide RC No.108/14 for depositing the same at FSL Junga, Distt. Shimla, HP.
On 16.4.2014 he deposited the above mentioned parcel alongwith above mentioned documents and RC was handed over to MHC.
24. In the cross examination PW-4 has stated that he remained at PP Junga on 15.4.2014. He further stated that he had deposited the case property on ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 28 2025:HHC:42172 ) 16.4.2014 and during this period the case property remained with him. PW-4 also denied that neither he .
went to FSL Junga with case property nor he deposited the same at FSL Junga.
25. HHC Bhim Singh No. 196, Police Station, of Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba, HP entered into the box as PW5. In his statement, he rt stated that he remained posted as HHC in Police Station, Sadar Chamba from February, 2014. On 25.6.2014 MHC P. S. Sadar Chamba had deputed him to FSL Junga Shimla HP for collecting the case property of this case and to obtain FSL report of this case. On 30-6-2014, he handed over the case property and FSL report pertaining to this case.
26. In his cross examination, PW-5 stated that he collected the case property and report on 27.6.2014, thereafter he stayed for one night in Police Station Sadar Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra. He stated that it is correct that the case property remained with ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 29 2025:HHC:42172 ) him from 27.6.2014 to 30.6.2014. He has stated that no other case property he had brought except of this .
case. PW-5 denied that neither he had gone to FSL Junga nor he had received the case property from there.
of
27. Constable Rajesh Kumar No. 442, Assistant Reader to S.P. Chamba (PW-6) stated that he was rt posted as Assistant Reader to S.P. Chamba. On 12.4.2014, Sh. Kulwant Singh Additional S.P. Chamba called him in his office and handed over him a copy of rukka at about 2.20. p.m. He entered the same in receipt register at Sr. No. 4632/VD which was signed by Additional S.P. in red circle 'A'. He is well conversant with the signatures of Additional S.P. Sh.
Kulwant Singh because he was working under his control. The copy of rukka is Ext. PW6/A which is true and correct as per the original.
28. Constable Manoj Kumar No. 244, Police Station, Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba, HP has ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 30 2025:HHC:42172 ) appeared in the witness box as PW-7. In his statement. he stated that he was posted as General .
Duty Constable in Police Station, Sadar Chamba from the year, 2010. He further stated that on 12-4-2014 Head Constable Varinder Singh I.O. of this case had of produced one sealed cloth parcel sealed with seal impression 'K' (five in numbers) containing 3 Kilo rt 700 grams cannabis/Charas for resealing along with NCB forms in triplicate and seal sample. He stated that the seal after its use was handed over to him and the seal impression was taken separately on a piece of cloth which is Ex. PW-7/A and was signed by him as a witness.
29. In the cross examination, he stated that the case property was produced before the SHO Tilak Singh at about 3.30 p.m. and it took half an hour for resealing. The seal sample was in the shape of length.
He admitted that Police Station is surrounded by thickly population.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS31 2025:HHC:42172 )
30. HC Kuldeep Singh No. 89, Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba has stepped into the witness box as .
PW-8. In his statement, he stated that he remained posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station, Sadar Chamba since January, 2013. On 12.4.2014, he of was working as officiating MHC because MHC was on leave. It is further stated that on 12-4-2014 HC rt Varinder Singh No.7 SIU Wing Chamba had deposited with him the articles pertaining to the accused during his personal search i.e. one mobile phone and currency notes of Rs.390/- and the same were entered by him in Malkhana register No. 19 at Sr. No.
580. He further stated that he had brought the original register of Malkhana and the extract is Ext.PW-8/A. On the same day at about 3.30 PM, SHO/Inspector Tilak Raj had deposited one cloth parcel which was sealed with seal impression 'K' (five in numbers) and the same was sealed with seal impression T (five in numbers) containing 3 Kilo 700 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 32 2025:HHC:42172 ) grams Charas/ cannabis alongwith seal impressions, copy of seizure memo, copy of resealing and NCB .
forms in triplicate. It is further stated by him that on 14.4.2014, the case property alongwith documents pertaining to this case vide RC No. 108/14 was sent to of FSL, Junga through HHC Bichitra Singh No. 107 and after depositing the case property alongwith rt documents the RC was handed over to him by HHC Bichitra Singh.
31. In the cross examination he has stated that the case property was deposited with him at 3.30 PM but the time to deposit the case property is mentioned in NCB forms as 5.45 p.m. He has denied that there is no reference in the malkhana register No. 19 pertaining to the case property. It is further stated by him that he got recorded his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. by the police that the articles recovered from the possession of the accused person such as mobile phone and currency notes amounting to Rs.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS33 2025:HHC:42172 ) 390/- have been deposited with him and the article of personal search was deposited by the I.O with him at .
about 3.50 p.m. It is also stated by him that as per the record, the case property was received from the SFSL, Junga on 20.9.2014 in the Police Station. He denied of that he had not received any case property nor entered in malkhana register No.19. He denied that rt he had not sent the case property to SFSL, Junga.
32. PW-9 Tilak Raj SHO, Police Station Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba, stated in his statement that he was posted as SHO in P. S. Sadar Chamba from May, 2014. On 12.4.2014, I.O of this case HC Varinder Singh SIU, Chamba at about 1.50 p.m sent rukka to him through Constable Bharat Bhushan for registration of the case. It is further stated by him that on the basis of rukka, he recorded FIR Ext. PW-
9/A which bears his signatures in red circle 'A'.
Endorsement on rukka Mark B also bears his signatures in red circle 'B' which is Ex. PW-1/B. He ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 34 2025:HHC:42172 ) further stated that he prepared the case file and handed over to Constable Bharat Bhushan. On the .
same date at about 3.30 p.m. HC Varinder Singh produced one sealed cloth parcel containing 3 Kilo 700 grams Cannabis/ Charas. The parcel was sealed of with seal impression 'K' (five in numbers) alongwith NCB forms in triplicate for resealing the same.
rt Further it is stated that in the presence of Constable Manoj Kumar he affixed his seal impression 'T' (five in numbers) on the said parcel and the seal impression was taken separately on a piece of cloth which is Ex. PW-7/ A which bears his signatures in red circle 'C'. He has stated that he also affixed the seal impression on NCB forms and also filled columns No. 9 and 10 of NCB forms in triplicate. The NCB forms in triplicate is Ext. PW-9/C which also bears his signatures in red circle.
33. In the cross examination, PW-9 stated that it took hardly 20-25 minutes to reseal the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 35 2025:HHC:42172 ) contraband. He admitted that in rapat No.36 (A), dated 12.4.2014, it is stated by him that case property .
after reseal was handed over to MHC, Police Station.
He further admitted that he had filled the time 5.45 p.m. in NCB forms in triplicate for depositing the case of property to the MHC. He also admitted that columns No.11 of NCB forms in triplicate is blank and the area rt near Police Station, Sadar Chamba is thickly populated. The seal impression 'T' was round in shape and it took hardly 30 minutes in registering the case. He further denied stated that no case property was handed over to him.
34. From the perusal of the above statements along with the documentary evidence placed on record, it reveals that the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.
35. PW-1 Yog Raj stated in his cross examination that the bus was signalled to be stopped by Head Constable Varinder Singh. At that time 9-10 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 36 2025:HHC:42172 ) passengers were travelling in the bus. From the front side of the bus Head constable Varinder Singh and .
Head constable Sunil Kumar boarded the bus and from its rear side door, he and Constable Bharat Bhushan boarded the bus. Statement of PW-1 is of contrary to the statement of PW-10 H.C Varinder Singh, who stated that he signaled the bus to stop.
rt From the front door of the window Constable Bharat Bhushan and Constable Yog Raj boarded the bus and he alogwith Constable Sunil Kumar boarded the bus from the back door. This is a material contradiction which has not been explained by the prosecution.
36. PW-1 Constable Yog Raj has stated in his statement that when the bus was stopped for checking, a person was found sitting on seat No.30, who was having a leather bag in his lap. However, no ticket from the possession of the accused was recovered. The prosecution has failed to link the said person to be travelling by the said bus in the absence ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 37 2025:HHC:42172 ) of any ticket placed on record. The memo of search (jamatalashi) Ext.PW1/C only shows that a mobile .
phone and currency notes in the sum of Rs. 390/-
were recovered from the possession of the accused.
37. In the present case, the police officials have of not given their search which could show that they were possessing electrical scale, government camera rt and other articles. The said fact could not be explained by the prosecution before the Court below as well as during the course of the arguments before this Court. PW-1 Constable Yog Raj stated in his statement that columns No.1 to 8 of NCB form were filled by the Investigating Officer. However, the Investigating Officer of the case PW-10 Virender Singh stated that he filled FIR number on the NCB form later on. The said fact also creates suspicion on the story as projected by the prosecution. In his statement PW-10 H.C. Virender Singh, has stated that he had checked the bus bearing Number HP-73-A-
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS38 2025:HHC:42172 ) 1316 at 9:25 a.m. in which accused person was travelling but he has failed to take log book of the bus .
into the possession which could show that on the particular date and time, the bus was going from Chanwas to Chamba. To the similar extent, he has of failed to take into possession ticket of the accused person in order to link and show that accused person rt was travelling in the said bus while sitting on seat No.30. PW 10 has admitted that he did not take into possession the RC of the bus. One of the discrepancies in his statement is that he described the case property in the form of sticks, balls and bundles, whereas in the report of FSL which is Ext.PX the description of the case property has been mentioned in the form of sticks and not in the form of balls. The description of the case property also comes under doubt after reading the report of FSL and statement of PW-10.
The I.O.of the case, PW-10 stated that he handed over the seal 'K' to the conductor of the bus Vijay Kumar ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 39 2025:HHC:42172 ) but surprisingly neither the conductor of the bus Vijay Kumar was examined nor seal was produced for .
comparison in the Court. There are material contradictions in the statements of police officials.
38. Though it is not a hard and fast rule that of statements of the police officials have to be ignored, however, in order to link the accused for the rt commission of offence, it is equally important that the said statements should be trustworthy, cogent, true and correct but in the present case statements are exaggeration and full of inconsistencies and contradictions for which adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
39. It has come in the statements of PW-1 Constable Yog Raj and PW-10 H.C Virender Singh that in the said bus about 9 to 10 passengers were travelling. Surprisingly, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution which leads to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to link the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 40 2025:HHC:42172 ) commission of the offence by the accused. Though, the statements of the police officials can be taken .
into the consideration in case they are trustworthy, however, taking into totality of the facts that since 9- 10 passengers were travelling in the bus, the of prosecution ought to have made an effort to have associated independent witnesses in order to link the rt respondent in the commission of offence and in the absence of doing so, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of independent witnesses, the story of the prosecution cannot be taken to be a gospel truth.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Takhaji Hiraji versus Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & others (2001)6 SSC 145 has held as under:
"19. So is the case with the criticism levelled by the High Court on the prosecution case finding fault therewith for non-examination of ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 41 2025:HHC:42172 ) independent witnesses. It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or .
an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case of which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, rt the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the Court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 42 2025:HHC:42172 ) adduced. The court of facts must ask itself whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was .
necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the of court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise...."
rt
42. In the present case, most material witnesses namely PW Subhash Chand-driver and Vijay Kumar-
conductor of the bus were cited as witnesses by the prosecution in the list of witnesses. However, they have been given up as having been won over by the accused. In our opinion, withholding the said two material witnesses is very fatal and the case of the prosecution is demolished.
43. This Court in case titled as State of Himachal Pradesh. vs. Dinesh Kumar (2017 (Supp) Shimla Law Cases 78 has held as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS43 2025:HHC:42172 )
29. "In normal course, where an independent witness has been examined with respect to a .
particular fact, second witness may not be necessary to be examined or resiling of the second independent witness may not be fetal to the of prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances, however, in a case where no independent witness rt has been associated, the prosecution is supposed to examine at least two witnesses of the spot in addition to the Investigating Officer and also at least one corroborative witness to the proceedings carried out by the Investigating Officer on the spot particularly in a case like present one where three official witnesses of the spot were available. In case of non- availability or absence of witness, thrust to produce such witness is not warranted but despite availability of witness, non-examination of such witness is fatal for prosecution."
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS44 2025:HHC:42172 )
44. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as S. Harnam Singh versus State of Delhi .
Admn.), AIR 1976 S.C 2140 has held as follows:
"11. The second contention raised by the Counsel is that the prosecution has not led any of evidence to substantiate the factum and the time of the receipt of these cloth bales of the Goods rt Shed. It is stressed that the best evidence with regard to this vital fact could be given by Chranji Lal, the truck driver, who is said to have brought these goods from the Mills to the Goods-Shed, Mohan Lal, the Gate Clerk of the Goods Shed, and Mukand Lal, the Marker of the goods. According to the Counsel these material witnesses had been withheld by the prosecution for an oblique motive and consequently an adverse inference should be drawn that if produced, they would have demolished the prosecution case by revealing that, in fact these ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS
45 2025:HHC:42172 ) goods were received in the Goods Shed sometime before the appellant came on duty on the 11th, .
notwithstanding the fictitious entries with regard to the exist of these goods from the Birla Mills, shown in the Excise Gate Passes. In of this connection, reference has been made to this Court's decisions in Sahaj Ram's case (1973) 1 SCC 490 rt =(AIR 1973 SC 618 = 1973 Cr. LJ
618); Habeeb Mohd. v. State of Hyderaba, 1954 SCR 475 = (AIR 1954 SC 51 = 1954 Cr. LJ 338).
22. Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, casts a duty on the court to put, at any enquiry or trial, questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specially, distinctly and separately. Failure to ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 46 2025:HHC:42172 ) do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating the trial if it is sown to have prejudiced the .
accused. If the irregularity does not, in fact, occasion a failure of justice, it is curable under S. 537 of the Code."
of
45. In Sahaj Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. rt in AIR 1973 S. C 618 (V 60 C 126), the Hon'ble Apex court held as under:
"10. According to the prosecution Shitabi, C. W. 1, was with the deceased at the time of the occurrence. Ram Prasad, C. W. 2, was also an eye-witness to the occurrence. Their names have been mentioned in the first information report as also in the charge-sheet as per-sons who had witnessed the attack on the deceased. Under those circumstances there was a duty on the part of the prosecution to have examined them as witnesses for the purpose of unfolding its case. Those ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 47 2025:HHC:42172 ) witnesses, when examined by the police had implicated all the ten accused as having taken part taken .
part in the attack. But when giving evidence in court, they have implicated only the present appellants. The plea on behalf of the of appellants was that these two witnesses have been won over by the 2nd group they have been made rt to give evidence against the 1st group alone. The explanation of the said witnesses for implicating the 2nd group in their statement to the police was that the sub-inspector had threatened to beat them if they did not name all the ten accused.
The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that these two witnesses have been purposely with-held by the prosecution because they will not be implicating the accused of the 2nd group in court. Mr. Uniyal, learned counsel appearing for the State, pointed out that when the other eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 3, have been examined, it was ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 48 2025:HHC:42172 ) unnecessary for the prosecution to have examined C. Ws. 1 and 2. We are not inclined, in the .
circumstances of this case, to accept this contention. As pointed out by this court in Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, 1954 SCR 475 = of (AIR 1954 SC 51) though the prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses irrespective of rt considerations of number or reliability, witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution. This court approved the decision of the Judicial Committee in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 289 laying down a similar proposition. In this case the first information report clearly states that Shitabi, C. W. 1, was an employee of the deceased and he was with his master at the time of the incident. He has also ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 49 2025:HHC:42172 ) given information about the incident to P. W. 1 and others. Whatever justification there may .
have been for not examining Ram Prasad, the prosecution, in our opinion, was not justified in keeping back Shitabi. The reasons given by of the prosecution that he will go behind his statement given to the police is no justification or excuse rt for keeping him back. Though the learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of C. Ws. 1 and 2, the High Court has characterized them as unreliable witnesses even so far as the present appellants are concerned. These two witnesses have deposed that PWs. 1 to 3 were not any where near the scene of occurrence. Unfortunately the High Court has not taken into account these circumstances when it chose to accept the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. The evidence of C. Ws. 1 and 2 has no doubt been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, though their evidence regarding the 2nd group ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 50 2025:HHC:42172 ) has been rejected as thoroughly unreliable as characterized by the High Court."
.
46. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad, of AIR 1954 S.C 51 that though the prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses irrespective of rt consideration of number or reliability witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution.
47. In the present case, the prosecution has withheld material witnesses Subhash Kumar and Vijay Kumar, therefore, story of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the learned Special Judge has rightly taken into consideration the fact that with ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 51 2025:HHC:42172 ) holding of the said material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution story.
.
48. PW-5 HHC Bhim Singh has stated that on 25.06.2014, MHC Police Station Sadar Chamba, Distt.
Chamba had deputed him to FSL Junga, Shimla for of collecting the case property and to obtain FSL report of the case. On 30.06.2014 he handed over the case rt property and FSL report pertaining to the case.
Interestingly, in his cross examination PW-5 admitted that the case property remained with him from 27.06.2014 to 30.06.2014. No explanation has come forward from this witness that from 27.06.2014 to 30.6.2014 where this case property was kept.
49. PW-8 has stated that case property was received from SFSL on 20.09.2014 after elapse of more than three months from 01.06.2014. It casts a great suspicion that where the case property was kept for about three months. Neither the seal was produced in the Court for perusal nor the specimen ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 52 2025:HHC:42172 ) seal under sealed cover was sent to FSL Junga. Sealing and sending the case property to FSL and receiving .
the case property back from FSL Junga creates doubt.
50. The learned Special Judge(II), Chamba, District Chamba has thrashed the entire oral as well of as documentary evidence placed on record and after appreciating the same has rightly acquitted the rt present respondent of the charges framed against him under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
51. The entire case as put-forth by the prosecution is full of inconsistencies and infirmities.
There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge (II), Chamba has rightly appreciated the oral as well documentary evidence placed on record.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that the prosecution in order to prove its case must establish the guilt of the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 53 2025:HHC:42172 ) accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It has been held that it is a .
a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not of only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'.
rt The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been further held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS54 2025:HHC:42172 )
53. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof .
beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent of unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
54. In the present case, the prosecution has rt failed to point out an error in the judgment passed by the learned court below. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record.
55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its various decisions, has held that in the case of acquittal, scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. The Apex Court has held that unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, only in those circumstances interference can be ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 55 2025:HHC:42172 ) done by the appellate court. It is not permissible to interfere with the findings of acquittal and equally, if two .
views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the appellate court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is of not possible at all.
56. The view taken by the learned Special Judge(II), rt Chamba is plausible as well as possible one.
57. No other point urged and argued.
58. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
59. The bails bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged.
60. Records be sent down.
( Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge December 03, 2025(veena) ...
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS56 2025:HHC:42172 ) .
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS