Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

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