MAHIMAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 173 
MAHIMAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 957 of2015) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 
20, 42, 43 and 50 - Search and recovery of contraband goods 
from the appellant - Conviction and sentence u/s.20 by the courts 
below - On appeal, held: Courts below rightly held that the 
prosecution able to prove their case against the appellant beyond 
reasonable doubt - Evidence adduced by the prosecution sufficient 
to warrant the appellant's conviction - Requirements of ss. 42, 43 
and 50, complied with at the time of search made from the appellant 
- Search made in public place, in the presence of gazetted officer 
and done after giving an offer to the appellant as required under 
the Act; and the quantity of the contraband recovered from the 
appellant commercial in nature - Also affidavit relied upon by 
appellant of M not proved in evidence in as much as M neither 
examined nor cross-examined - Thus, the conviction by courts below 
upheld. 
Witness - Non-examination of - Effect - Held: On facts, 
evidence adduced by the prosecution was found sufficient to warrant 
the conviction - Jn that case, non-examination of one or two 
witnesses though cited initially would not adversely affect the 
prosecution case in any manner - Thus, the conviction could be 
sustained on the evidence adduced. 
Evidence - Appreciation of, by Supreme Court again in the 
appeal - Held: Courts below concurrently recorded a finding against 
the appellant after appreciating the evidence as also absence of 
any kind of extreme perversity and arbitrariness in the findings of 
the High Court - Thus, such exercise cannot be undertaken at this 
stage. 
173 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
174 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The two courts below rightly held that the 
prosecution was able to prove their case against the appellant 
beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence adduced by the 
prosecution which indisputably remained un-rebutted, was, 
sufficient to warrant the appellant's conviction. It was also held 
that all the requirements of relevant ss. 42, 43 and 50 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were 
complied with at the time of search made from the appellant 
thereby leaving no infirmity of any nature in their compliance 
including the procedure prescribed therein for making searches 
etc. The prosecution proved with the aid of evidence that the 
search was made in public place. It has also come in evidence 
that it was carried out in the presence of gazetted officer and was 
done after giving an offer to the appellant as required under the 
_NDPS Act; and that quantity of the contraband recovered from 
the appellant was commercial in nature as prescribed in the 
Schedule to the NDPS Act. [Paras 13, 14] (178-C-E] 
1.2 The appellant failed to adduce any evidence in defence 
except to record his statement in Section 313 proceedings taking 
therein a plea of denial. The affidavit relied upon by the appellant 
of one M was not proved in evidence in as much as M was neither 
examined nor cross-examined. The two courts below rightly di.d 
not consider such affidavit as evidence, which was of no use and 
could not be construed as piece of evidence for deciding the rights 
of the parties. [Paras 15, 16] [178-F-G] 
1.3 If the evidence adduced by the prosecution was found 
sufficient to warrant the conviction then it was not necessary for 
the prosecution to examine all the witness cited by them. It is for 
the prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses they consider 
it proper to examine to prove their case against the accused and 
whether their evidence would be sufficient to warrant the 
conviction of the accused. Thereafter, it is for the Court to assess 
and appreciate the evidence adduced to see as to whether it is 
sufficient to sustain conviction with the aid of such evidence or 
not. It is found that the witnesses examined by the prosecution 
were able to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt 
and hence, even if one or two witnesses though cited initially 
MAHIMAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
were later given up by the prosecution, the same did not adversely 
affect the prosecution case in any manner. Thus, the conviction 
could be sustained on the evidence adduced and was rightly held 
to sustain in this 

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