MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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