2.002-Kg Charas Case: Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds Three Acquittals, Citing Independent Witnesses’ Denials and Contradictory Police Accounts

On 26 December 2016, police intercepted a Mahindra XYLO carrying the three accused and allegedly recovered 2.002 kg of charas from a backpack attributed to accused Kapil. The State alleged offences under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Special Judge acquitted the accused on 10 September 2018; the State appealed against that acquittal

The High Court considered, among other matters, the independent witnesses’ failure to support the alleged recovery and contradictions among the police witnesses concerning the prior information, search, and case property

Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act prescribe offences relating to cannabis and abetment or criminal conspiracy; the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt

The judgment also refers to the statutory procedures under Sections 42(2), 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence but should not interfere where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse or rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence [pp. 13–24, applying Muralidhar alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440; and Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433].

The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution on the central fact of recovery: one denied that the contraband was recovered from the vehicle in his presence, and the other denied that the recovery was effected in his presence

The police witnesses also materially differed about where the prior information was received and recorded, and whether the backpack was searched inside or outside the vehicle

Further, the case property’s brown tape at trial differed from the yellow tape described in the seizure record, while the independent witness said the seal had been taken back by police

These deficiencies reasonably raised doubt about the recovery, possession, and identity and safe custody of the case property. The trial court’s assessment was therefore a possible view, not a perverse one warranting appellate intervention

The State’s appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure