THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus PARDEEP KUMAR ETC.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 16-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
PARDEEP KUMAR ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 276-277 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.20 r/w. s.29 – Conviction under – Propriety of – On 27.01.2009 a
police party on patroling duty on National Highway 21 on Manali-
Kullu road, signaled a  car to stop – Vehicle stopped and a person
allegedly fled away from the car, while  accused-respondent nos.1
and 2 were found sitting in the car – On search, rucksack containing
cannabis mixture found from the car – Trial court convicted and
sentenced the accused for offences u/s. 20 r/w. s.29  – High Court
in appeal reversed the order of conviction on the ground that
prosecution did not discharge its burden of examining independent
witnesses in support of its case and that the contraband article was
produced before trial court in a torn condition raising serious doubt
about its authenticity – Held: Examination of independent witnesses
is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is
not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case – In the present case,
according to the prosecution, independent witnesses were not
available to witness the recovery of contraband due to extreme cold
– In absence of any animosity between the police party and the
accused and having regard to the large quantity of contraband
that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), it is unlikely that the contraband
was planted/foisted in the vehicle of accused persons – Further,
w.r.t. condition of the contraband parcel, the prosecution witnesses
examined in this regard testified that the parcel was in a torn condition
due to its bulky nature and also due to nails on the stool on which
it was kept – Order of High Court is set aside and that of trial court
convicting and sentencing the accused-respondents, restored.
Evidence – Independent witnesses – Non-examination of –
Discussed.
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 656
         656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Examination of independent witnesses is not
an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case,
according to the prosecution, independent witnesses were not
available to witness the recovery of the contraband due to extreme
cold.  The fact that the incident took place at about 6.30 p.m. on
27-01-2009 and that too on the Manali-Kulu road may lend
credence to the prosecution version of its inability to produce
independent witnesses. In the absence of any animosity between
the police party and the accused and having regard to the large
quantity of contraband that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), it is
unlikely that the contraband had been planted/foisted in the
vehicle of the accused persons.  In so far as the condition of the
contraband parcel is concerned, the materials on record indicate
that the said parcel was brought to the trial Court on 15-9-2009
in a torn condition.  The prosecution witnesses examined in this
regard had testified that the parcel was in a torn condition due to
its bulky nature and also due to nails on the stool on which it was
kept.  In this regard, it may also be noted that the samples from
the contraband parcel were sent to the Forensic Laboratory on
23.7.2010.  No suggestion was given to the witnesses (PWs 12
and 13) who had taken the samples to the laboratory that the
contraband parcel had been tampered with. PW-16, who had
chemically examined the contraband samples, was fully cross-
examined by the defence.  There is nothing in his evidence to
suggest that the sample(s) came to him in a torn or otherwise
doubtful condition.  The grounds on which the High Court had
reversed the findings of conviction of the accused-respondents
ought not to be accepted. [Para 6][659-E-H; 660-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 276-277 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2015 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. A. No. 179/2011 and Cr. A. No.
180/2011 respectively.
D. K. Thakur, AAG, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the
Appellant.
Rabin Majumder, Ms. Antima Bazaz, Advs. for the Respondents.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PARDEEP KUMAR
ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2.  These appeals are by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging
the

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