MAKHAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 21-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 5 S.C.R. 789 
MAKHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 682of2015) 
APRIL 21, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
A 
B 
ss. 15 - Recovery of contraband from the vehicle driven by C 
the accused- Conviction by courts below- On appeal, held: 
The independent witnesses have not supported the 
prosecution case and recovery of the contraband not 
satisfactorily proved- The conviction solely based on official 
witnesses cannot be sustained - Accused liable to be D 
acquitted. 
s. 50- Scope of- Conviction u/s. 15 of the NDPS Act..,. 
Reliance on compliance of s.50 - Held: Mere compliance 
with s. 50 by itself would not be sufficient to establish the guilt E 
of the accused - s. 50 comes into play only in the case of 
personal search of the accused - In the present case s. 50 
was not applicable as the recovery was not from the person 
of the accused but from the vehicle driven by him. 
F 
Evidence: 
Official witnesses- Evidentiary value - Held: Conviction 
can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses, 
only if evidence of such witnesses inspire confidence and G 
not by overlooking evidence of independent witnesses. 
Proof - Standard of - Held: The more stringent the 
punishment is, the more heavy is the burden on the 
prosecution - In the cases of NDPS Act, the punishment is H 
789 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A severe, hence strict proof is required for proving the search, 
seizure and the recovery- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 - Criminal Jurisprudence. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. For recording the conviction, the courts 
below mainly relied on the testimony of official witnesses 
and found them sufficiently strengthening the recovery 
of the possession from the appellant. The manner in 
C which the alleged recovery has been made, does not 
inspire confidence and undue credence has been given 
to the testimony of official witnesses, who are generally 
interested in securing the conviction. In peculiar 
circumstances of the case, it may not be possible to find 
o out independent witnesses at all places at all times. 
Independent witnesses who live in the same village or 
nearby villages of the accused are at times afraid to come 
and depose in favour of the prosecution. Though it is 
well-settled that a conviction can be based solely on the 
E testimony of official witnesses, condition precedent is 
that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire 
confidence. In the present case, it is not as if independent 
witnesses were not available. Independent witnesses 
PW1 and another independent witness examined as 
F DW2 has spoken in one voice that the accused person 
was taken from his residence. In such circumstances, 
the High Court ought not to have overlooked the 
testimony of independent witnesses, especially when it 
casts doubt on the recovery and the genuineness of the 
G prosecution version. [Para 10) [795-E-H; 796-A-C] 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 -
followed. 
H 
1.2. The High Court discarded the evidence of PW1 
MAKHAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
791 
and DW2 observing that these independent witnesses A 
hail from the same village to which accused belongs and 
the accused might have approached the witnesses 
through respectables of the village to resile from his 
statement. That apart, the High Court also observed that 
both the independent witnesses did not explain the B 
circumstances or compulsions in which they had to sign 
the blank papers. The reasoning of the High Court is 
based more on assumptions than on acceptable basis. 
When PW1 and DW2 have asserted that they have signed 
only the blank papers, the courts below ought to have C 
considered them in proper perspective. [Para 9] [795-B-
D] 
2.1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act will 
come into play only in the case of personal search of D 
the accuse~ and not of some baggage like a bag, article 
or container, etc. which the accused may be carrying 
ought to be searched [Para 15] [798-C] 
State of H.P v. Pawan Kumar(2005) 4 SCC 350; Ajmer 
E 
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 - relied 
on. 
2.2. In the present case, since the vehicle was 
searched and the contraband was seized from the F 
vehicle, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was 
not required. In the absence of independent evidence, 
connecting the appellant with the vehicle, mere 
complia

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