RAVEEN KUMAR versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1044 · 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
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
RAVEEN KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2187-2188 of 2011)
OCTOBER 26, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – Appellant acquitted
u/s.20, NDPS Act – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On appeal,
held: Appellant’s acquittal was primarily based upon the finding
that the case was not one of ‘chance recovery’ – Trial Court reached
such finding on the basis of certain averments made in a written
reply submitted by prosecution in opposition to appellant’s bail
application – No opportunity to controvert this reply document was
given to the prosecution, nor was PW5 confronted with it – Further,
PW1’s statement (sole independent witness, though declared hostile
by prosecution) corroborates and strengthens the seizure of
contraband substance (charas) from the possession of appellant –
Testimonies of star police-witnesses, PW2 and PW5 are not
contradictory – On facts, two years’ rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.50,000/- awarded by High Court is not disturbed –
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.20 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Constitution of India
–Art.136.
Evidence – Court records – Veracity of – Held: No legal
presumption can be extended to the veracity of the contents of Court
records emanating during trial.
Witness – Lack of independent witnesses – Duty of Courts –
Discussed – Criminal Trial.
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.20(ii)(C) – Minimum mandatory sentence – Discussed – Narcotics,
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no difference of power, scope,
jurisdiction or limitation under the CrPC between appeals against
1044
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1044
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
judgments of conviction or of acquittal. An appellate Court is free
to re-consider questions of both law and fact, and re-appreciate
the entirety of evidence on record. There is, nonetheless, a self-
restraint on the exercise of such power, considering the interests
of justice and the fundamental principle of presumption of
innocence. [Para 11][1051-C-D]
Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1970)
3 SCC 474; State of UP v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271;
Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9
SCR 1039; Ram Jag v. State of UP (1974) 4 SCC 201 :
[1974] 3 SCR 9 – relied on.
2.1 The appellant’s acquittal was primarily based upon the
finding that the case was not one of ‘chance recovery’. The trial
Court reached such finding solely on the basis of certain
averments made in a written reply submitted by the prosecution
in opposition to the appellant’s bail application. A Court should
be over-cautious to place reliance on a piece of evidence with
which the concerned witness has not been confronted despite an
opportunity to do so. Although there is no need to separately
prove the court records emanating during trial but no legal
presumption can be extended to the veracity of the contents of
such documents. The reply filed in court proceedings, at best,
can be treated as an admission; which must not only be proved,
but also the opposite party must be confronted with it at the stage
of cross examination. [Paras 15, 16][1052-G; 1053-A-C]
Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (1977)
2 SCC 49 : [1977] 2 SCR 671 – relied on.
2.2 No opportunity to controvert this reply document was
given to the prosecution, nor was PW5 confronted with it.
Moreover, no weight can be accorded to such reply when the
trial Court itself, while rejecting bail, had interpreted the same
to conclude that the police “was not having a prior information
that the petitioner was carrying Charas in his Maruti Van, though,
it appears, that there was a general information against the petitioner
indulging in such activities.” Since irrelevant material was
impermissibly relied upon by the trial Court to arrive at an
acquittal, the High Court was adequately justified to interfere
with and reverse the findings. [Paras 17, 18][1053-G; 1054-A-B]
RAVEEN KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
3. Lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the
prosecution case. However, such omissions cast an added duty
on Courts to adopt a greater-degree of care while scrutinising
the testimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can
form the basis of a successful con

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