Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal Set AsideThe State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pardeep Kumar etc.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 276-277 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7105-7106 of 2015); reported as (2018) 13 SCC 808
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 16 February 2018
- Bench
- Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 29
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, set aside the High Court's acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and the sentence; the accused were to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence, failing which they would be taken into custody (paras 7-8).
Key holdings
- Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement, and their non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution (para 6).
- The time and place of the recovery, about 6.30 p.m. on 27-01-2009 on the Manali-Kullu road, lent credence to the explanation that extreme cold left no independent witness available (para 6).
- Absent animosity between the police party and the accused, the large quantity recovered made it unlikely that the contraband was planted (para 6).
- A parcel produced torn in court did not cast doubt where tampering was never suggested to the witnesses who carried the samples and the chemical examiner found nothing doubtful (para 6).
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that on 27-1-2009, at about 6.30 p.m., a police party patrolling National Highway 21 on the Manali-Kullu road stopped a car; one person fled and the two respondents were found in the rear and driver's seats (para 3). Constables sent for local witnesses found none because of the severe cold, and a rucksack near the driver's legs held about 18.85 kgs of cannabis mixture (para 3). The trial court convicted both, imposing 12 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine on each (para 2). The High Court acquitted them: independent witnesses should have been examined, as a bazaar lay about 100 metres away on a busy road, and the parcel was produced in court torn (para 5).
Court's Findings
The Court held that "examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case" (para 6). The prosecution's explanation, that extreme cold left no independent witness available, drew credence from the time and place of the incident, about 6.30 p.m. on 27-01-2009 on the Manali-Kullu road (para 6). With no animosity between the police party and the accused, and given the large quantity recovered, the Court found it "unlikely that the contraband had been planted/foisted" in their vehicle (para 6). The parcel had reached the trial court torn on 15-9-2009; the prosecution witnesses attributed this to its bulky nature and to nails on the stool on which it was kept (para 6). No suggestion of tampering was put to the witnesses who had taken the samples to the laboratory (PWs 12 and 13), and nothing in the evidence of the chemical examiner (PW-16), who was fully cross-examined, suggested that the samples reached him torn or otherwise doubtful (para 6). The grounds on which the High Court reversed the conviction therefore "ought not to be accepted" (para 6).
Legal Principle
Non-examination of independent witnesses is not necessarily fatal to an NDPS prosecution. Where their absence is plausibly explained and the police bear the accused no animosity, a large recovery is unlikely to have been planted; and a torn case-property parcel raises no doubt when tampering is never suggested to the witnesses (para 6).
