Testimony of a Sole Police Witness Can Sustain NDPS Conviction: Supreme Court

At about 12.15 a.m. on 16/17.09.1990, a police party holding a nakabandi stopped a tractor-trolley driven by the appellant and recovered thirty three bags, about thirteen quintals and twenty kilograms, of poppy husk (para 2). The prosecution examined only one witness, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-1) (para 3). The Sessions Judge, Sirsa acquitted the appellant on 22.04.1994, finding PW-1 untrustworthy; the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted him under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and imposed twelve years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,50,000 (paras 1, 3). Before the Supreme Court he attacked PW-1's credibility and the non-examination of the Sub-Inspector who prepared the rukka (para 4).

PW-1 was a member of the nakabandi party, signed all the documents, witnessed the recovery memo, and remained unshaken after searching cross-examination (para 7). At midnight the prosecution could not be expected to examine independent witnesses, and two persons asked to join had refused; "conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses if evidence of such official witnesses inspires confidence" (para 8). Gyan Singh, where there was habitation 100 yards away, did not apply, as no such material was on record (para 9). "There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance", though such evidence needs careful scrutiny (para 10), as Girja Prasad held (para 11). Once physical possession is proved, Section 35 places on the accused the burden of proving he was not in conscious possession (paras 12-13). The objection that PW-1 could not have been at two places failed, as both FIRs recorded the same place of occurrence (para 15). Non-examination of the investigating officer caused no prejudice, since PW-1 signed all recovery memos (para 16). With no enmity, planting so huge a quantity was "highly improbable" (para 17).