Failure to associate a second independent witness does not invalidate an otherwise credible NDPS recovery.

On 26 January 2019, during routine patrolling near Behi, Koti, Chamba, police stopped the appellant, who was carrying a backpack. A search in the presence of one independent witness and police witnesses allegedly recovered 1.555 kg of charas.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.

The appellant appealed, challenging, among other matters, the reliability of the witnesses, the failure to associate a second independent witness, alleged contradictions, and compliance with statutory requirements.

Whether the prosecution evidence, including the testimony of police witnesses and the sole independent witness, proved recovery of charas from the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the alleged contradictions and the non-association of a second independent witness?

Whether the alleged defects in the investigation and handling of the case property—including the asserted non-compliance with statutory requirements—undermined the conviction?

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act criminalises possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis; Sections 52A and 57 concern, respectively, inventory and related procedures for seized narcotic drugs and submission of a report of arrest and seizure, while Section 55 addresses custody and safe handling of seized articles.

Non-association of independent witnesses does not, by itself, require rejection of the prosecution case; police officials are competent witnesses, though their evidence must be carefully scrutinised.

Under Rajan v. State of Haryana and Karan Singh v. State of U.P., minor discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution case are not a basis to discard otherwise credible testimony.

The Court found that the independent witness, Vinod Kumar, supported the recovery and seizure proceedings, and that the police witnesses consistently testified to the appellant’s apprehension and recovery of the contraband from his backpack.

Given the chance recovery during routine patrol, the Court accepted that the police had no time or opportunity to associate another independent witness; its absence therefore did not undermine the case.

The asserted contradictions, including a witness’s reference to an Additional Superintendent of Police visiting the scene, were treated as minor and insufficient to displace the consistent account of recovery.

The Court also relied on the seizure and resealing records, Section 57 and Section 52A documents, and the FSL report as corroborative link evidence.

It concluded that the prosecution evidence had been properly appreciated by the trial court.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving in force the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.