Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud Case Foreign Law Degree Taken Directly After School Cannot Be Treated As 'First Degree' For Admission To 3-Year LL.B. In India: Bombay High Court Supreme Court Relaxes 3-Year Bar Practice Rule For Civil Judge Entry, Introduces 1-Year Practice & Clerkship Model

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

Latest Legal News