Material Discrepancies and Failure to Associate Independent Witnesses Create Reasonable Doubt Vitiating NDPS Conviction

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Kullu, for possession of 2 kg of charas under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that on February 24, 2011, a police party led by PW-7 intercepted the Appellant at Cheel Mour, where he attempted to flee and threw a bag containing the contraband.

Initially, the High Court acquitted the Appellant in 2013 based on then-prevalent regional precedent, but the Supreme Court set aside that acquittal in 2022 (Criminal Appeal No. 1089/2016) following the judgment in Hira Singh v. Union of India, remanding the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

The Court applied Section 20 and Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Following Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 5164), the court noted that Section 50 (personal search) is not attracted when the contraband is recovered from a bag carried by the accused.

While conviction can be based on official testimony, such evidence must be reliable, cogent, and convincing—especially in the absence of independent witnesses—due to the stringent nature of punishments under the NDPS Act.

The Court found the prosecution's narrative highly suspect due to several inconsistencies. First, no independent witnesses were associated despite the apprehension occurring at 7:00 a.m. near a populated market accessible within minutes by the police vehicle.

Second, there were irreconcilable contradictions regarding the custody of the seal used to bag the contraband; PW-5 claimed it was given to PW-6, while PW-7 claimed it was given to a witness who was never examined.

Third, the court noted a "mysterious" one-month delay in the contraband reaching the State FSL, as the transit receipt showed receipt in March despite the police claim of delivery in February.

Finally, discrepancies in the spot map and the logistical impossibility of the police party conducting proceedings while five officials sat inside one vehicle further eroded the credibility of the investigation.

The Court answered that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated March 19, 2013, acquitted the Appellant, and ordered the refund of any fine deposited.