NDPS | Credible Police Testimony Enough for Conviction, Even When Independent Witnesses Turn Hostile: Himachal Pradesh High Court

In a significant ruling on September 3, 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal of Bharat Bhushan and others, affirming their conviction under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The appellants, who had been sentenced to 11 years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial court, were found guilty of possessing 1.5 kg of ‘Charas’. Despite independent witnesses turning hostile, the court held that the testimonies of the official witnesses were credible and consistent, ensuring the validity of the prosecution's case.

On June 26, 2016, a police team headed by Inspector Gurbachan Singh conducted a patrol in Palampur. Acting on secret information, the team intercepted an Alto car carrying Bharat Bhushan, his son Kamaljeet, and his wife Seema Devi. A search of the vehicle revealed a bag containing 1.5 kg of Charas. The appellants were subsequently arrested, and the narcotics were sent for chemical examination, which confirmed the presence of Charas in commercial quantity. The appellants denied the charges, claiming false implication, but were convicted by the trial court in January 2020.

The court emphasized that the independent witnesses associated with the case turned hostile, but this did not automatically discredit the prosecution's case. The court held that "the testimonies of official witnesses, including police officers, carry the same evidentiary value as any other witness, provided they are scrutinized carefully to rule out any possibility of false implication." The court found the testimonies of the police officers to be reliable, consistent, and unshaken under cross-examination​.

The appellants challenged the procedural aspects, particularly under Sections 42(2) and 57 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the police had not followed proper legal protocols during the search and seizure. However, the court found that the prosecution had complied with all statutory requirements. Inspector Gurbachan Singh had documented the information under Section 42(2) and sent it to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The court also upheld the NCB form, seizure memo, and Chemical Examiner's report, confirming the proper handling and custody of the contraband​​.

The court placed considerable weight on the unbroken chain of custody of the narcotics. The prosecution established that the seized Charas was handled meticulously from the moment of its recovery until it was tested by the forensic laboratory. Testimonies from multiple police personnel, including the MHC responsible for maintaining the evidence, corroborated the proper documentation and storage of the contraband​.

The court dismissed the defense’s contention that the case should be discarded due to the hostility of the independent witnesses. Referring to established precedents, the bench reiterated, "Independent witnesses turning hostile does not necessitate an acquittal, especially when the evidence from official witnesses is credible." The court underscored that the hostile stance of the witnesses did not undermine the prosecution’s case as the police officers' accounts were consistent and backed by documentary evidence​.

The court reasoned that under the NDPS Act, a conviction can be secured on the testimony of official witnesses alone, provided it is corroborated and credible. The bench further remarked that compliance with statutory safeguards, including Sections 42 and 50, ensured the validity of the investigation. The court rejected the defense's claim of false implication, finding no evidence to support the argument that the appellants had been framed​.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan observed, "Statements of official witnesses can be the basis for the conviction of the accused; however, before basing conviction, strict scrutiny with care and caution is required." He added that the chain of custody had been meticulously maintained, and the appellants failed to provide a credible defense.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to uphold the conviction sends a strong message regarding the evidentiary value of official witnesses in cases under the NDPS Act. This judgment reaffirms the principle that procedural compliance and reliable testimony from law enforcement can form the basis for a conviction, even when independent witnesses turn hostile. The ruling is expected to influence future cases where independent witnesses fail to support the prosecution, bolstering the role of official testimony in ensuring justice.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Bharat Bhushan & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh