STATE OF HP vs KHEM SINGH

2026:HHC:36924-DB 
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
Reserved on: 22.8.2026
Decided on: 01.09.2026
Uploaded on: 01.09.2026
State of H.P. …Appellant.
Versus
Khem Singh. …Respondent.
Corum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Appellate. Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Senior
Additional Advocate General.

For the Respondent : Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal
against judgment dated 4.6.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2013 (272 of 2013),
titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Khem Singh, arising out of FIR No.
16 dated 26.1.2013, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"), whereby the respondent-
accused has been acquitted of the charge framed against him.
2. We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General
for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the respondent-
accused and have also gone through the record.
3. Prosecution case is that a police party headed by ASI Rajesh
Kumar (PW-7), consisting of ASI Dheeraj Singh (not examined), PSI Yograj
(not examined), and HC Nand Lal (PW-1), left Police Station Bhuntar on
26.1.2013, at about 4.20 P.M. in official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-
34A-9984, driven by PSI Yograj, for routine patrolling towards Hurla-
Tharas. In this regard GD Entry No. 30-A dated 26.1.2013 Ex. PW-2/A was
registered at Police Station Bhuntar.
4. As per the prosecution story, at about 5:00 PM, while Police
Party was present at place Chhutti-Bihal, they noticed a person, coming
from Hurla side holding a bag in his right hand, who on noticing the Police
Naka Party, got perplexed and tried to flee by turning around, which
created suspicion and, therefore, Police Party overpowered him, who
disclosed his name Khem Singh (respondent) age 36 years. Suspecting
some illegal article with him, PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar sent PW-1 HC Nand
Lal to search for independent witnesses, who came back after fifteen
minutes with report that the area was a secluded place and he did not find
any person to be associated as independent witness to the search and
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
seizure process. Whereupon PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar associated PSI
Yograj and PW-1 HC Nand Lal as witnesses in the search and seizure
proceedings. Thereafter PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar gave his personal
search to the respondent-accused and then bag of Khem Singh was
checked, wherein a light-pink coloured polythene packet was found,
wherein sticks type, buttons type, round as well as ball shaped a black
substance was found, which was checked by breaking and on smelling and
on the basis of experience, it was found as charas (cannabis). Thereafter,
as per prosecution case, recovered contraband, on weighing was found
2.00 Kilograms. The recovered contraband was again put in the bag in the
same manner and the bag was seized and sealed in a cloth parcel with
seal impression 'T' at 8 places. NCB-I form was filled in triplicate and
specimen seal was taken and after use, seal was handed over to PW-1 HC
Nand Lal. Seizure memo (Ext. PW-1/C) was prepared on the spot and a
copy of same was delivered to the respondent-accused free of cost after
signing by PW-1 Nand Lal and PSI Yog Raj, as witnesses, which was also
signed by respondent Khem Singh.
5. On finding commission of offence under Section 20 of the
NDPS Act, for registration of FIR, rukka Ext. PW-7/A was sent to the Police
Station through PW-1 HC Nand Lal at 6:30 PM.
6. Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the spot on the
spot, recorded statements of witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
7. In the meanwhile, PW-1 HC Nand Lal reached in the Police
Station and after registration of FIR, he came back on the spot and handed
over the case file to PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar.
8. It is case of the prosecution that entire proceedings were
conducted in official Jeep in torch light.
9. After completion of spot proceedings, PW-7 ASI Rajesh
Kumar alongwith Police Party and respondent came back to the Police
Station and produced the parcel for re-sealing alongwith relevant
documents, which was re-sealed by PW-6 SI Lal Singh with seal
impression 'H' and sample seal ‘H’ was taken as Ex. PW-6/A and he also
filled relevant columns of the NCB-1 form Ext. PW-3/C. Case property was
handed over to MHC PW-3 Tara Chand, who made entry in Register No.
19 at Serial No. 44, on 27.1.2013. He also filled relevant column of NCB-1,
and sent sealed parcel of contraband to State Forensic Science Laboratory
(SFSL), Junga, through PW-5 HHC Jinesh Kumar vide RC No. 16/13 on
28.1.2013.
10. During investigation, special report Ext. PW-4/A was
prepared and sent to Additional SP, Kullu, Sandeep Dhalwan, who after
making endorsement thereon, handed over the same to PW-4 HC Balbir
Singh, the then Reader to Additional SP.
11. On the basis of Rukka PW-6 SI Lal Singh, registered FIR Ex.
PW-6/B and made endorsement Ex. PW-6/A on the rukka. PW-2
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
Constable Subhash Chand had recorded rapat No. 30-A (Ex. PW-2/A)
regarding departure of Police Party and rapat Ex. PW-2/B regarding arrival
of Police Party to the Police Station.
12. It is an admitted case that Police party headed by PW-7 ASI
Rajesh Kumar was consisting of ASI Dheeraj Singh, PSI Yog Raj and PW-1
HC Nand Lal. Out of these four official spot witnesses, only three namely
ASI Rajesh Kumar, PSI Yog Raj, and HC Nand Lal were cited as
witnesses, whereas ASI Dheeraj Singh was not cited as a witness despite
the fact that he had signed various documents as witness as per claim of
the prosecution.
13. HC Nand Lal was examined as PW-1 on 5.7.2013. On that
day, PSI Yog Raj was also present in the Court. However, PSI Yog Raj was
not examined and was given up by the Public Prosecutor being repetitive in
nature, despite the fact that at that time only one prosecution witness had
been examined, who was the person who had taken ruka to Police Station
and was not present on the spot throughout with the Police Party.
14. After examining only one witness, it could not have been said
that PSI Yog Raj was a repetitive in nature, as at that time no other witness,
except PW-1 Nand Lal had been examined. Therefore, giving up of PSI
Yog Raj being repetitive is fatal for the prosecution, particularly when spot
witness ASI Dheeraj Singh was neither cited nor examined as a witness
and only Investigating Officer PW-7 Rajesh Kumar was available as
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
another witness, apart from PW-1 HC Nand Lal to corroborate prosecution
story. In fact, by not citing or examining ASI Dheeraj Singh and giving up
PSI Yog Raj by claiming that he was being repetitive in nature, the
prosecution has committed a blunder by not examining any other witness to
corroborate the statement of PW-7 Rajesh Kumar, the sole spot witness,
who was present on the spot throughout because to corroborate statement
of PW-7 Rajesh Kumar at least one other witness was necessary to be
examined, which was required, particularly for the reason that no
independent witness had been associated in search and seizure process in
present matter.
15. Non-availability of independent witnesses also appears to be
incorrect statement as it has come in statement of PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar
and PW-1 HC Nand Lal, at a distance of one and a half kilometers, there
were residential villages. Even if, it is assumed that no independent witness
was readily available at that time, being a busy road it was quite possible
that some vehicle would have crossed the spot. On this count also plea of
the prosecution appears to be concocted, as PW-1 HC Nand Lal received
ruka at 6.30 P.M. and was able to get a lift in a private car going towards
Bhuntar there and then. It is very strange that while PW-7 ASI Rajesh
Kumar claims that the place was secluded and no vehicle crossed during
the entire period, availability of private vehicle to PW-1 Nand Lal falsifies
the claim of PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar that no vehicle crossed during the
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
entire proceedings from the spot. Had it been so, it would not have been
possible for PW-1 Nand Lal to get lift in a private car.
16. In examination-in-chief, PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has stated
that he had completed entire proceedings on the spot inside the vehicle
with the help of a torch and come back to the Police Station alongwith
accused and Police Party at 8:30 PM. He has further stated that he had
recorded the statements of SHO, PW-6 SI Lal Singh and PW-1 HC Nand
Lal after handing over the contraband and documents to PW-6 SI Lal Singh
for resealing, meaning thereby, that was done in Police Station, as in cross-
examination, also he has stated that he recorded the statements of the
witnesses in the Police Station, since it was dark on the spot.
17. It is again a material contradiction as in examination-in-chief
PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has stated that entire proceedings were
conducted on the spot in side the vehicle, but in cross-examination he has
stated that it was dark and, therefore, he recorded statements of witnesses
in Police Station. Both claims are impossible to be reconciled.
18. PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has stated that he did not conduct
any proceedings after arrival of PW-1 Nand Lal on the spot, with self
statement that he only mentioned FIR number on documents on the spot.
19. On the contrary, PW-1 HC Nand Lal has stated that after
handing over the case file to PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar on the spot, ASI
Rajesh Kumar recorded his statement on the spot and thereafter search of
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. PW-1 HC Nand Lal
has been cited as a witness to the personal search of respondent Khem
Singh along with PSI Yog Raj in memo of personal search Ex. PW-1/D.
According to PW-1 HC Nand Lal, personal search was conducted in his
presence. At this juncture, it is also apt to notice that respondent was
arrested on the spot Chutti Bihal at about 7:45 PM as recorded in the
memo Ex. PW-7/C. In this memo, PW-1 Nand Lal is not a witness, but PSI
Yog Raj and ASI Dheeraj Singh are cited as witnesses, meaning thereby
that PW-1 Nand Lal was not present on the spot. For want of examination
of ASI Dheeraj Singh and PSI Yog Raj, there is no witness regarding
complete search and seizure process. PSI Yog Raj, despite citing as
witness has not been examined, whereas ASI Dheeraj Singh was not cited
as a witness at all. Both of them have not been examined in the Court, who
is also witness PW-7 Rajesh Kumar to memo of arrest and information
thereof.
20. PW-1 HC Nand Lal has stated that after leaving the Police
Station at 4:30 PM, the Police Party stopped at Bhuntar Bazar and Bajaura.
21. On the other hand, PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has stated that
they left the Police Station at 4:20 PM and went to Kalheli and Bajaura, and
then proceeded to the spot. PW-1 HC Nand Lal is silent about Kalheli, and
PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar is silent about Bhuntar Bazar.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
22. PW-1 HC Nand Lal has stated that he took lift from the spot in
a private vehicle, whereas PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar expressed his
ignorance about the vehicle in which Nand Lal travelled to the Police
Station. PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has also stated that he did not remember
that at about 7:00 P.M. any Government bus crossed the spot. PW-7 ASI
Rajesh KUmar has stated that when PW-1 Nand Lal came back on the
spot, he had completed all proceedings on the spot, with further statement
that he recorded the statements of witnesses in the Police Station, as it was
dark. When PW-7 ASI Rajesh was able to prepare the site plan Ex. PW-
7/B, arrest memo Ex. PW-7/C, ruka Ex. PW-7/A, seizure memo Ex.
PW-1/C, and sample seals in torchlight inside the vehicle, then what
prevented him from recording the statements of the witnesses on the spot.
23. With regard to aforesaid discrepancy, it is also apt to record
that according to PW-1 Nand Lal, his statement was recorded on the spot
and thereafter personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.
PW-1/D. At the time of arrest of respondent, PW-1 Nand Lal was not
present on the spot. Personal search of the accused was conducted
immediately after arrest, probably before 8:00 P.M. and at that time also
PW-1 Nand Lal was not present on the spot. In the memo of arrest, only
PSI Yog Raj and ASI Dheeraj Singh are witnesses, whereas in memo of
Jama Talashi, PSI Yog Raj and PW-1 HC Nand Lal have been shown as
witnesses. In case Nand Lal was present at the time of arrest, he would
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
have been cited as a witness to the arrest memo and if he was not there at
that time, then it was not possible that he was available at the time of
Jamatalashi.
24. No doubt an accused can be convicted only on the basis of
statements of official witnesses, however, at the same time, it is cardinal
principle of criminal jurisprudence that requirement of associating
independent witnesses is not a mere formality. Even if it is presumed that it
was a secluded place and no independent witness was available and two
official witnesses were associated by way of compulsion, it was incumbent
upon the prosecution to examine both spot official witnesses who were
associated in the search and seizure process. PW-1 HC Nand Lal was
associated as a witness, but at the same time, he was also sent to the
Police Station with rukka, whereas ASI Dheeraj was available on the spot
to be associated as a witness, but he was not officially associated in search
and seizure process. However, in arrest memo, he has been cited as a
witness. In the aforesaid facts, non-citing of ASI Dheeraj Singh as a
witness in the list of witnesses and non-examination of PSI Yog Raj,
despite mentioning him as a witness of the spot in the list of witnesses, is
fatal for the prosecution case.
25. In month of January, at 6:00 PM also, there exists sufficient
darkness and same situation continues thereafter. Therefore, plea of PW-7
ASI Rajesh Kumar that he could not complete the proceedings on the spot
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
due to darkness also appears to be an excuse to justify preparation of
documents in the Police Station. Even otherwise, PW-1 HC Nand Lal has
also falsified the version of PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar regarding recording of
statement of witnesses in the Police Station, as PW-1 HC Nand Lal has
categorically stated that his statement was recorded by PW-7 ASI Rajesh
Kumar on the spot. PW-1 HC Nand Lal had come on the spot after
registration of FIR. His statement was recorded on the spot, then what
prevented PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar to record statements of other witnesses
on the spot, who were only two in a number, i.e. PSI Yog Raj and ASI
Dheeraj Singh.
26. PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar has also stated that after arrival of
PW-1 HC Nand Lal on spot, he did not conduct any proceeding on the spot,
except mentioning of FIR number on the documents on the spot. His own
statement as well as statement of PW-1 HC Nand Lal falsifies this
disposition also.
27. From the aforesaid discrepancy, it appears that incident has
not taken place as alleged and there is something which is being hidden
from the Court and prosecution has not come to the Court with clean
hands.
28. It is also apt to record that PW-1 HC Nand Lal is a police
official who knows the sanctity of the production of seal handed over to him
after use in sealing the parcel of contraband at the time of seizing the
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:36924-DB
Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2014
High Court of H.P.
contraband, but he has very casually stated that he had lost the same and,
therefore, had not brought the same to the Court to produce in evidence.
29. Respondent has an advantage of acquittal by the Trial Court,
fortifying presumption of innocence in his favour, and learned Senior
Additional Advocate General has failed to point out any material on record
so as to establish a cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to rebut the
presumption of innocence of the respondent.
30. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the present
appeal.
31. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
32. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent-accused stand
discharged.
33. Record of Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
st
1 September, 2026
(Keshav)
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS