If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction

Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed the principle that conviction under the NDPS Act can be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses if their evidence is consistent, cogent, and unshaken. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi dismissed Sham Lal alias Shama’s appeal against his conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, rejecting the argument that the absence of independent witnesses vitiated the trial.

“The mere fact that no independent public witness was joined is not fatal to the prosecution case. When official witnesses have deposed in a clear and consistent manner, the burden shifts on the accused to show why their testimony should not be relied upon,” the Court observed while upholding the trial court’s verdict.

Conviction Under NDPS Act – Recovery of 10 Grams of Smack from the Appellant

The case arose from a chance encounter on January 26, 2009, when a police team led by ASI Daler Singh spotted the accused near a brick kiln. On seeing the police, Sham Lal allegedly panicked, threw a polythene packet on the ground, and attempted to flee. He was apprehended, and upon search, 10 grams of smack was recovered. A sample of 5 grams was sealed and sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the presence of diacetylmorphine (heroin).

Sham Lal was convicted by the Special Court, Jalandhar, and sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 300. The present appeal challenged the conviction on the grounds that the case relied entirely on police witnesses and lacked independent corroboration.

"Prosecution Witnesses Had No Motive to Falsely Implicate the Accused"

The appellant contended that the entire case was built on the statements of official witnesses, making it unreliable. However, the Court noted that all prosecution witnesses – including the investigating officer, recovery witnesses, and forensic officials – deposed consistently about the search, seizure, and handling of the case property.

The Court relied on settled judicial principles, holding that: “There is no absolute rule that independent witnesses must be present in every case. If official witnesses are reliable, the absence of public witnesses does not render the prosecution story doubtful.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh (2019) 10 SCC 473, the Court emphasized that non-joining of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution, particularly when public witnesses were unwilling to join.

Compliance with NDPS Act Procedures – Chain of Custody Maintained

The appellant further claimed that there was no proper chain of custody of the seized contraband. The Court, however, found that procedural requirements were duly followed.

The testimony of SI Balbir Singh (PW5) confirmed that the case property was sealed, deposited in the police station, and subsequently produced in court without tampering. The forensic report established that the sample contained 59.04% diacetylmorphine, proving it was smack/heroin.

After reviewing the entire evidence, the High Court found no merit in the appeal.

“From the recovery to forensic examination, every stage of the investigation was conducted as per procedure. The appellant has failed to point out any major contradictions or enmity between him and the police witnesses that would suggest false implication,” the Court observed.

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld Sham Lal’s conviction and sentence, setting a strong precedent that official witness testimonies, when credible and unshaken, are sufficient for conviction under the NDPS Act.

Date of decision: 18/02/2025