Contradictory Police Testimonies and Absence of Independent Witnesses Are Fatal in Criminal Trials: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case Involving 1.2 kg Charas

“The Law Demands Proof, Not Presumptions — In a resounding reaffirmation of foundational criminal law principles, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State's appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The case involved the alleged seizure of 1.2 kilograms of charas, but the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and absence of credible evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed:

“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. A criminal case must stand on the strength of evidence and not on the weakness of defence.”

Reiterating the sanctity of the presumption of innocence, the Court refused to interfere with the trial court's 27th March 2015 acquittal, passed by the Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr.

“Two Views Are Possible—Acquittal Must Not Be Disturbed Lightly”

The State had approached the High Court under Section 378 CrPC, challenging the lower court’s acquittal. However, the Bench invoked the well-settled principle that “once an accused has been acquitted, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced”.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Muralidhar alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka, the Court held:

“An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal merely because a different view is possible. Only perversity or grave illegality can justify interference.”

The Court found that the trial judge had given detailed reasons, all of which were supported by record and consistent with judicial reasoning.

“Prosecution Story Suffers from Material Contradictions—Even Basic Facts Disputed by Their Own Witnesses”

The prosecution alleged that on 28th December 2008, the accused Kaul Ram was apprehended near Sarahan bifurcation carrying charas in a polythene bag. Yet, when the depositions of the prosecution witnesses—PW-1 Guddu Ram, PW-5 Shyam Lal, and PW-8 ASI Kanwar Singh—were examined, the Court found them to be internally contradictory on critical facts, including:

• Mode of transport used by the police team

• Place and time of registration of FIR

• Sequence of sealing and resealing of the case property

• Handover of the accused and documents

“These contradictions cannot be brushed aside as minor—when they affect the credibility of the recovery and chain of custody, they become fatal,” the Court said.

“No Independent Witness Examined—Despite Being in a Populated Area”

The most glaring lapse was the prosecution’s failure to join any independent witnesses, even though the alleged recovery happened in a locality with shops and residences. The Court was firm in its view that:

“Non-association of independent witnesses, despite availability, raises serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court observed:

“The presence of independent witnesses is not a mere formality, especially under the NDPS Act where severe punishment necessitates procedural sanctity.”

The Investigating Officer offered no explanation as to why no local person was asked to witness the search or seizure—a silence that further weakened the State’s case.

“Chain of Custody Not Clearly Established—Link Evidence Is Missing”

The High Court also pointed out that chain of custody, a crucial element in NDPS prosecutions, was not clearly demonstrated. Evidence of when and how the seized substance was handled, stored, and sent to the chemical examiner was either missing or confused in the record.

“The handling of contraband must be documented precisely, not vaguely. Loose ends in the chain of custody are enough to vitiate a conviction,” the Bench said.

“Acquittal Was Not Perverse—It Was Inevitable Given the Evidence”

The Court ultimately upheld the reasoning of the trial court and refused to interfere, stating:

“There is no perversity or miscarriage of justice in the impugned judgment. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit must go to the accused.”

The High Court’s judgment emphatically underscores that compliance with procedural safeguards is not a technicality, but the very essence of a fair trial, especially in cases under the NDPS Act where penalties are exceptionally harsh.

The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondent to execute bail bonds of ₹50,000 under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to ensure his availability in future proceedings, if necessary.

“Once the foundation of the prosecution case is shaken, conviction cannot be sustained merely on assumptions. The rule of law demands certainty, not speculation,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 2nd September 2025