- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Trilok Chand And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On 10 July 2004, Inspector Anjani Kumar (PW 12) received secret information that certain individuals were transporting charas near Panarsa Bridge, Himachal Pradesh. Police personnel intercepted the respondents late at night, allegedly seizing three gunny bags of charas from their possession. Samples were prepared, sealed and a criminal case was registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The trial court convicted all accused, sentencing each to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 (with two years’ further imprisonment in default). On appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, by judgment dated 14 October 2009 (2009 SCC OnLine HP 2344; (2010) 87 AIC 729), reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondents, citing material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s conviction by giving undue weight to discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.
- Whether the prosecution had proved, beyond reasonable doubt as required under the stringent standards of the NDPS Act, that the contraband was recovered from the respondents.
Arguments of the Parties
State/Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court placed excessive reliance on minor or trivial inconsistencies, disregarding cogent testimony of official witnesses.
- Material on record, when read as a whole, established lawful seizure and possession of charas by the respondents.
Respondent-Accused's Arguments
- The High Court correctly identified serious contradictions that undermined the prosecution’s case.
- The evidence failed to satisfy the heightened standard of proof mandated for NDPS offences, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 | Minor discrepancies or variances in evidence will not, by themselves, vitiate prosecution. | Distinguished: the present inconsistencies were found to be major, going to the root of the prosecution story, unlike the minor variances addressed in Lekh Raj. |
| Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86 | Court’s duty to sift truth from falsehood; conviction can rest on trustworthy portions of testimony. | Applied: After sifting, the Court was not convinced of the prosecution’s reliability; trustworthy evidence capable of sustaining conviction was absent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the evidence and concurred with the High Court that multiple, substantive discrepancies created reasonable doubt:
- Independent witnesses hostile: PW 1 and PW 2 denied being present at the seizure, stating they were called later merely to sign papers.
- Contradictory chain-of-custody testimony: Divergent statements on who transported seized material, the timing, and whereabouts of PW 8 and PW 9 undermined Section 55 NDPS compliance.
- Discrepancies about weighing scales: PW 9, PW 5, PW 8 and PW 12 differed materially on when scales were borrowed and who collected them.
- Alternative narrative supported by defence witnesses: DW 2 and DW 3 testified that police recovered bags from an abandoned house and later implicated the respondents, who were allegedly picked up from a roadside tea stall.
- Record tampering indications: The seizure form mentioned a different location (Nagwain) and originally recorded only one accused’s name, suggesting later alteration.
- Applying the principle that “the stricter the punishment, the stricter the proof,” the Court held the prosecution failed to exclude the possibility of false implication.
Citing Lekh Raj and Sukhdev Yadav, the Court emphasised that while minor contradictions can be ignored, the present inconsistencies struck at the core of the prosecution version and therefore could not be overlooked.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals and affirmed the High Court’s acquittal of all respondents.
Implications: The respondents stand finally acquitted and are entitled to freedom forthwith. The decision reiterates the stringent burden on the prosecution in NDPS cases and underscores that substantial contradictions in seizure and custody evidence will result in acquittal. No new legal principle was created; the Court applied settled standards of proof.
N.V. Ramana, J.— These appeals are filed by the State having aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-10-2009 2009 SCC OnLine HP 2344, (2010) 87 AIC 729 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, allowing the criminal appeals filed by the accused-respondents herein against their conviction passed by the trial court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “the NDPS Act”). By the said order, the High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused-respondents herein.
2. In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts as emerged from the prosecution case need to be noted at the outset. On 10-7-2004, Anjani Kumar, Inspector, CID, Shimla (PW 12), upon receiving a secret information that some people are pursuing the unlawful business of charas, proceeded towards Panarsa Bridge along with ASI Gian Chand (PW 9) and Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW 8) and some other police personnel. Amar Chand (PW 1) and Kuldeep Kumar (PW 2) who were going on that route at that time, also joined them as witnesses. At around 11.30 p.m. in the night, the accused-respondents herein arrived at that place carrying with them three gunny bags of contraband (charas) and upon seeing police, they tried to run away. Police overpowered the accused and seized the contraband from their possession, prepared samples, sealed and marked them and registered the case. After investigation, charges were framed against the accused and upon their denial, the case was committed for trial.
3. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two years.
4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused filed appeals before the High Court and the High Court after analysing the evidence allowed their appeals and set aside the conviction. Dissatisfied with the acquittal order passed by the High Court, the State is in appeal before us.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant State of Himachal Pradesh and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well, and carefully gone through the material on record.
6. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the State that while dealing with the appeals of the accused, the High Court has given greater importance to trivial discrepancies in the prosecution case. Ignoring the cogent evidence advanced by the official witnesses, the High Court simply held that there were material contradictions in their depositions and without assigning any plausible reason allowed the appeals of the accused and thereby committed an error of law.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, however, supported the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused.
8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and after going through the material available on record, we notice the following discrepancies in the prosecution case, which in our considered opinion, bear greater importance in dealing with the case on hand:
8.1. The evidence of Tulsi Ram (DW 2) makes it clear that on the day of incident i.e. 10-7-2004, when he was going to his house through Panarsa Bridge at about 4/5 p.m., police officials met him on the way near Panarsa Bridge. They asked him to load three gunny bags lying outside an abandoned house, into the vehicle. Accordingly, he carried two gunny bags while one bag was carried by the police officials and loaded them in the vehicle. He has also deposed that the police officials told him that the bags contained contraband material “charas” and the same was recovered from the abandoned house.
8.2. PW 1 (Amar Chand) and PW 2 (Kuldip Kumar) who were said to be the independent witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution. They clearly stated that they were not present at the spot when the incident took place and denied the detaining of the respondent-accused in their presence and alleged recovery of contraband from the accused. In categorical terms, they deposed that they were called to the police station and their signatures were taken on some papers. Moreover, they have admitted that earlier also they were used by the police as prosecution witnesses in some other cases.
8.3. According to the depositions of police officials PW 9 (Gian Chand) was sent to shopkeeper Hem Raj (PW 5) to borrow scale and weights on the intervening night of 10-7-2004 & 11-7-2004, and the seized material was sent to malkhana. Contrary to this, PW 5 (Hem Raj) stated that the scale and weights were borrowed from him by the police officials in the morning at 9 or 10 a.m. on 11-7-2004. The said PW 5 was also declared hostile. Not only this, according to Anjani Kumar (PW 12), Gian Chand (PW 9) left the spot to get scale and weights at 11.30 p.m. returned to the spot at 8.15 p.m., ante-time. Whereas another witness Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW 8) deposed that Gian Chand (PW 9) left the spot to bring scale and weights at 1 a.m.
8.4. According to Anjani Kumar (PW 12), he called Rajinder Kumar (PW 11) on his cell phone and asked to join him at Kullu whereas the record shows that Rajinder Kumar (PW 11) joined PW 12 at Panarsa and he has clearly denied to have received any call from PW 12.
8.5. It is the case of the respondent-accused that while they were taking tea at a Dhaba, police arrived there and taken them to police station and falsely implicated them in the case. This fact corroborates with the deposition of Bihari Lal (DW 3), a tea vendor, who stated that police officials came to his shop and took away the accused on 11-7-2004.
9. Besides the abovenoted inadequacies, there are also certain other contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses relating to other aspects of the case, per se, according to Rakesh Kumar (PW 8), he carried the report (Ext. PH) to police station in a truck, whereas PW 9 (Gian Chand) states that PW 8 travelled by a scooter and the prime witness Anjani Kumar (PW 12) says that PW 8 went to police station and returned to the spot by foot.
10. One more important discrepancy in the prosecution case that gives rise to suspicion of truthfulness of police officers is that, as deposed by Anjani Kumar (PW 12) the entire seized case property together with six sample parcels was deposited by him with Gandhi Ram (PW 6). Whereas Dabe Ram, SHO (PW 4) says that Anjani Kumar (PW 12) produced three bags and three sample parcels before him at 8.30 p.m. On the other hand, the material on record proves the same wrong as at the relevant time, PW 12 was present at Sadar Police Station, Mandi and sent special report to Superintendent of Police (Ext. PW 11-A).
11. It also appears from the record that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 55 of the NDPS Act, the case property was accordingly tampered by the police. It is also relevant to mention here that in the prescribed form, the place of seizure was mentioned as Nagwain and not Panarsa Bridge and the name of only one accused i.e. Santosh Kumar was shown from whom the contraband was said to have been seized while he was carrying three gunny bags. As rightly observed by the High Court, it appears that the name of other accused was added afterwards to justify the fact that one person could not have carried three bags of contraband at a time.
12. Going by the number of discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses, the entire prosecution story vitiates and leads for discrediting its version. Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are fatal for the case, though minor discrepancies or variance in their evidence will not disfavour (see State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247). Considering the circumstances of the case on hand, it can be said that the discrepancies are comparatively of a major character and go to the root of the prosecution story. We cannot therefore ignore them to give undue importance to the prosecution case. It is well settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence (see Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86).
13. In the light of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is scanty and lacking support to establish that the contraband was really recovered from the possession of the respondents in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time. It is imperative that the law the Court should follow for awarding conviction under the provisions of the NDPS Act is “stringent the punishment stricter the proof”. In such cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication. But, in the case on hand, under the above explained circumstances, the prosecution story cannot be believed to award conviction to the respondent-accused. They deserve benefit of doubt. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view 2009 SCC OnLine HP 2344, (2010) 87 AIC 729 taken by the High Court and see no reason to interfere with the order impugned herein.
14. Accordingly, the criminal appeals stand dismissed.
Alert