RAJESH DHIMAN versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 26-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
1057
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1057
RAJESH DHIMAN
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2013)
OCTOBER 26, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.20
– Both the appellants were travelling on a motorcycle and one of
them was with a backpack slung over his shoulders – A police team
stopped and searched them – They discovered polythene bags
weighing 3 Kg 100 gms containing charas – The prosecution
examined nine witnesses to support their case of chance recovery,
which included eight police officials and one independent witness,
PW-3 – The appellant did not lead any defence evidence but
propounded an alternative version and claimed that while returning
from a nearby temple, they had given a lift to an unidentified third
person – The backpack containing the recovered narcotics was
claimed to be owned by the said stranger, who allegedly escaped
from the spot – The trial Court acquitted the appellants holding
that charges under the NDPS Act were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt – The trial Court was also critical of the fact that
the complainant, PW-8 himself was the investigating officer which
caused serious prejudice to the fairness of the investigation – It
held that no charas was recovered from the appellants as deposed
by the independent witness, PW-3 – However, the High Court set
aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for possession of
charas u/s. 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to rigorous
imprisonment for ten years – On appeal, held: The Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic
Branch of Delhi) has authoritatively settled the law that merely
because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the
investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and
therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the
accused is not entitled to acquittal – Thus, in the instant case there
is no reason to draw any adverse inference against PW-8 himself
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
investigating his complaint – Certain actions (or lack thereof) by
the investigation or chinks in the prosecution case can’t be the sole
basis for concluding bias – Further, the claim of appellants that
seized contraband was carried by an unknown stranger is ex-facie
fanciful and is without any evidence – Infact, this has bolstered the
prosecution case that appellants were present on the spot and
interaction with police had taken place and that search was not
based on any prior information but was spontaneous and thus, it
was a case of chance recovery – PW-3 himself claims that he was
not present at the time of incident, his statement can at best be
construed to mean that no charas was recovered in front of him,
and not that no charas was recovered from the appellants at all –
As correctly appreciated by the High Court in detail, non-
examination of independent witnesses would not ipso facto entitle
one to seek acquittal – The High Court has rightly relied upon the
testimonies of the government officials having found them to be
impeccable after detailed re-appreciation of the entire evidence –
Thus, there is no merit in the appeals and the respondent-State is
directed to take appellants into custody to serve the remainder of
their ten-year sentences.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Whether bias was caused by complainant also being
the investigating officer?
1.1 Suffice to say that the law on this point is no longer res
integra and the controversy, if any, has been set at rest by the
Constitutional Bench of this Court in Mukesh Singh. The earlier
position of law which allowed the solitary ground of the
complainant also being the investigating officer, to become a
spring board for an accused to be catapulted to acquittal, has
been reversed. Instead, it is now necessary to demonstrate that
there has either been actual bias or there is real likelihood of
bias, with no sweeping presumption being permissible. [Para
10][1065-C-D]
1.2 Therefore, see no reason to draw any adverse inference
against PW8 himself investigating his complaint. The appellants’
claim of bias stems from the purported delays, non-compliance
of statutory mandates and non-examination of independent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
witness. In effect, the appellants are seeking to circuitously use
the very same arguments which have individually been held by
the High Court to be factual

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