Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

High Court Upholds Conviction for Possession of Charas: Testimony of Police Officials Alone Can Be Sufficient

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Himachal Pradesh High Court dismisses appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act for possession of 7.490 kg of Charas.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of Kehar Singh and Paras Ram for possession of Charas weighing 7.490 kg, affirming the decision of the trial court. The bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja highlighted the sufficiency of police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses and dismissed procedural objections raised by the appellants.

On December 19, 2015, during a routine patrolling operation at Sandhil Mode on NH-21, a vehicle was stopped by the police. The driver, Kehar Singh, and the passenger, Paras Ram, were found in possession of a Pithu bag containing Charas. Despite efforts to find independent witnesses, none were available. The contraband was seized, and the accused were arrested on the spot. Subsequently, they were convicted by the trial court under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

The court emphasized the reliability of the police officials’ testimonies, stating, “Testimonies of official witnesses, including police officials, carry the same evidentiary value as any other witness.” The bench noted that the police officers’ statements were consistent and remained unshaken during cross-examination.

Addressing the appellants’ contention regarding the absence of independent witnesses, the court held, “Non-association of independent witnesses or non-supporting by independent witnesses itself is not a ground for acquittal.” The judgment cited precedents where the Supreme Court upheld convictions based on police testimony alone when independent witnesses were not available.

The appellants argued that non-compliance with Section 52A, which mandates inventory and certification of seized contraband, vitiated the prosecution’s case. The court refuted this claim, noting that the entire contraband was promptly sent for chemical analysis and produced in court. “Non-compliance with procedural technicalities did not prejudice the appellants’ defense,” the bench observed.

The court dismissed the appellants’ allegation that the contraband was planted by the police. It highlighted the lack of evidence of enmity with the police and the improbability of planting such a large quantity of Charas. The judgment stated, “The prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, with consistent and credible testimony of official witnesses.”

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan remarked, “Conviction based solely on the evidence of police officials is well-established if the testimony is reliable and trustworthy.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on the credibility of police testimony in narcotics cases, even in the absence of independent witnesses. This judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing official witness statements and ensures that procedural lapses do not overshadow substantive evidence. The decision serves as a significant precedent in cases under the ND&PS Act, bolstering the legal framework for prosecuting drug-related offenses.

 

Date of Decision: July 01, 2024

Kehar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Similar News