KULWINDER SINGH &ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 05-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 6 S.C.R. 175 
KULWINDER SINGH &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.681 of2011) 
MAY05, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 - ss. 15, 50- Search and seizure - Recovery of bags c 
containing poppy husk from a vehicle -All persons sitting in 
the truck ran away except one - Order of conviction and 
sentence of the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 15, 
on the basis of the evidence on record - On appeal, held: 
Courts below correctly relied upon the evidence to record D 
their conviction- Evidence was unimpeachable and beyond 
reproach - Evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the 
official witnesses was trustworthy and credible - There was 
no need of holding test identification parade since the two 
prosecution witnesses identified the accused in court - It E 
was clear from the materials on record show that appellants-
accused were in conscious possession of the said articles -
Bag containing poppy husk were seized from the truck and 
was not a case of persona/ search of a person, thus, there 
was no need for non-compliance of s. 50- Further, no adveise F 
inference could be drawn for non-examination of the 
independent witnesses since they had been won over. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 The test identification parade was not 
held. The two witnesses-PW-2 and PW-3 identified the 
accused-appellants in court. As per their evidence they 
had seen the accused-appellants in torch light and they 
had also seen them running away. They chased them H 
175 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A but they could not be apprehended. Trial judge as well 
as the High Court took note of the fact that it was not all 
that dark and with the help of torch light, they could have 
identified the accused persons. The suggestion given 
to these witnesses was absolutely vague. Nothing really 
B was elicited in the cross-examination to discard the 
testimony of these witnesses. As the witnesses identified 
the accused-appellants in the court and except giving a 
bald suggestion that they have not seen the accused 
persons, there was nothing in the cross-examination 
C thus, the identification in court is accepted. [Paras 8, 13] 
[182-B-D; 183-F] 
1.2 Once possession is found, the accused is 
presumed to be in conscious possession. If the accused 
D takes a stand that he was not in conscious possession, 
he has to establish the same. There were 110 bags of 
poppy husk being carried in the truck. The presence of 
accused which has been proven, establishes their 
control over the bags. The circumstances clearly 
E establish that they were aware of the poppy husk inside 
the bags and in such a situation, there can be no iota of 
doubt that they were in conscious possession of the 
same. [Para 17, 14] [186-F; 184-C-D] 
F 
1.3 Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 only applies in case 
of personal search of a person, but it is not extended to 
a search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. 
The bag containing poppy husk were seized from the 
G truck. It was not a case of personal search of a person. 
Non-compliance of s. 50 would not vitiate the conviction. 
[Paras 18 and 20] [187-B-C; 189-C] 
1.4 What is necessary for proving the prosecution 
H case is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence. 
KULWINDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
177 
No adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination A 
of the independent witnesses since they had been won 
over. That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be 
rejected solely on the ground that independent 
witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal 
of the evidence on record the Court found that the case B 
put forth by the prosecution was trustworthy. When the 
evidence of the official witnesses were trustworthy and 
credible, there was no reason not to rest the conviction 
on the basis of their evidence. The evidence is 
unimpeachable and beyond reproach and the witnesses C 
cited by the prosecution can be believed and their 
evidence has been correctly relied upon by the courts 
below to record a conviction. [Para 21, 22) [189-D-F; 190-
H; 191-A] 
Matru v. State of U.P. 1971 (3) SCR 914: (1971) 2 SCC 
75; Santokh Singh v. /zhar Hussain 197 4 (1) SCR 78: 
(1973) 2 SCC 406; Ma/khan Singh & Others v. State of 
M.P. 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443: (2003) 5 sec 746; 
Visveswaran v. State 2003 (3) SCR 978: (2003) 6 SCC 
73; Ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.