Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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