STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus TRILOK CHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 17-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
TRILOK CHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2133-2134 of 2011)
JANUARY 17, 2008
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.55
– Contraband goods – Recovery of – Conviction of respondents-
accused under s.20 and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment
– Acquittal by High Court – State’s appeal against acquittal on the
ground that High Court gave greater importance to trivial
discrepancies in the prosecution case and without assigning any
plausible reason allowed the appeals of accused – Held: The
discrepancies in the prosecution case highlighted were the evidence
of DW-1 that on the fateful day, police officials asked him to load
gunny bags lying outside the abandoned house; the evidence of
independent witnesses to the effect that they were not present at the
spot when the incident took place and that they were called to police
station and their signatures were taken on some papers – These
discrepancies were major in character – The evidence is lacking
support to establish that the contraband was really recovered from
the possession of the accused in the manner alleged by the
prosecution on the said date and time – In view of number of
discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the contradictory
statements by prosecution witnesses, the prosecution story appeared
doubt – Prosecution having failed to establish the commission of
alleged offence by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused-
respondents are granted benefit of doubt – Interference with the
order of acquittal not called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The record showed that in order to satisfy the
requirement of Section 55 of N.D.P.S. Act, the case property was
accordingly tampered by the police.  In the prescribed form, the
place of seizure was mentioned as Nagwain and not Panarsa Bridge
and the name of only one accused was shown from whom the
contraband was said to have been seized while he was carrying
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 255
255
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
three gunny bags. The name of other accused was added
afterwards to justify the fact that one person could not have carried
three bags of contraband at a time.  In view of number of
discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the
contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses, the entire
prosecution story vitiated and led for discrediting its version.
Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are fatal for the
case, though minor discrepancies or variance in their evidence
will not disfavour. Considering the circumstances of the case on
hand, it can be said that the discrepancies are comparatively of a
major character and go to the root of the prosecution story. These
cannot therefore be ignored to give undue importance to the
prosecution case. It is well settled that the Court can sift the
chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of
the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point
of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it
ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept
the stated evidence. [Paras 11, 12][260-C-G]
2.   The evidence is scanty and lacking support to establish
that the contraband was really recovered from the possession of
the respondents in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the
said date and time. It is imperative that the law the Court should
follow for awarding conviction under the provisions of N.D.P.S.
Act is “stringent the punishment stricter the proof.” In such
cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very
zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication. But,
in the case on hand, under the circumstances, the prosecution
story cannot be believed to award conviction to the accused-
respondents. They deserve benefit of doubt. [Para 13][261-A-C]
State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 : [1999] 4
Suppl. SCR 286; Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar
(2001) 8 SCC 86 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 91 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[1999] 4 Suppl.  SCR 286
relied on
Para 12
[2001] 3 Suppl.  SCR 91
relied on
Para 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2133-2134 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2009 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal Nos. 220 and 348 of
2006.
D. K. Thakur, S. Ahmed, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Naresh K.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.