Material contradictions coupled with non-examination of spot witnesses rendered the NDPS prosecution unreliable.

On 26 January 2013, a police party from Police Station Bhuntar, headed by ASI Rajesh Kumar (PW-7), allegedly intercepted the respondent at Chhutti-Bihal while he was carrying a bag and attempting to flee.

A search allegedly resulted in the recovery of 2 kg of charas, which was sealed and seized through a seizure memo; the rukka was thereafter sent for registration of an FIR under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The case property was subsequently re-sealed, deposited in the malkhana, and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory.

The Special Judge, Kullu acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 4 June 2014, against which the State preferred the present appeal.

The prosecution relied principally on PW-1 HC Nand Lal and PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar; PSI Yog Raj, although cited as a spot witness, was not examined, while ASI Dheeraj Singh, who had allegedly participated in the proceedings and signed documents, was neither cited nor examined.

Whether the prosecution established the alleged recovery and seizure of 2 kg of charas from the respondent beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain a conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the non-examination of material police witnesses, non-association of independent witnesses, and contradictions in the prosecution evidence rendered the search, seizure, arrest, and investigation unreliable.

Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court disclosed any perversity or substantial error warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The Court applied Section 20 of the NDPS Act, under which conviction requires reliable proof of unlawful possession of cannabis/charas.

It reiterated that, although conviction may legally be based on the testimony of official witnesses, the requirement of associating independent witnesses in search and seizure proceedings is not a mere formality, particularly where the prosecution case contains material inconsistencies.

Material witnesses to the search and seizure must be examined where their evidence is necessary to corroborate the prosecution version; withholding such witnesses may be fatal.

The Court also applied the settled appellate principle that an accused acquitted by the Trial Court enjoys a strengthened presumption of innocence, and interference is justified only where the prosecution demonstrates a cogent, reliable, and convincing basis to displace that presumption.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to present a coherent and corroborated account of the alleged recovery.

PSI Yog Raj, who was present in Court and cited as a spot witness, was improperly given up as “repetitive” after only one prosecution witness had been examined, while ASI Dheeraj Singh was not cited or examined despite allegedly signing material documents.

The explanation that no independent witness was available was considered doubtful because residential villages were located nearby and the spot was on a busy road; the fact that PW-1 obtained a lift in a private vehicle contradicted PW-7’s claim that no vehicle passed during the proceedings.

Further, PW-7 gave inconsistent accounts regarding whether the proceedings and witness statements were completed at the spot or at the police station, and the presence of PW-1 during the personal search was inconsistent with his absence as a witness to the arrest memo.

The Court also considered PW-1’s casual explanation that the seal handed to him after use had been lost to be an additional deficiency affecting the integrity of the sealing process.

These contradictions and omissions created a serious doubt about whether the incident occurred as alleged and prevented the prosecution from overcoming the respondent’s enhanced presumption of innocence.

The material contradictions, failure to examine essential witnesses, doubtful explanation for the absence of independent witnesses, and loss of the seal justified the Trial Court’s acquittal.

Finding no merit in the State’s appeal, the Court dismissed it, discharged the respondent’s bail bonds, and directed that the Trial Court record be returned.