Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that reliable and trustworthy police testimony can suffice for conviction under the NDPS Act even without independent witnesses. This judgment follows and applies Supreme Court authority, affirming established legal standards and serving as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/596/2024 of SHIV KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010551852024 |
| Date of Registration | 19-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under NDPS Act can rest solely on police testimonies, absent independent witnesses, if such testimony is found reliable and trustworthy. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that the testimony of police officers, if reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction; no legal presumption exists against police witnesses. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Police recovered 9.54 grams of charas and 5.25 grams of heroin/chitta from the dickey of the accused’s scooty during a road naka; investigation and seizure were conducted mainly by police officials in absence of independent witnesses due to isolated location; prosecution relied on 17 witnesses, chiefly police personnel. Accused denied involvement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that conviction under the NDPS Act can rest solely on police testimony if deemed credible, even in absence of independent witnesses.
- Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence that credibility, not official status, governs evidentiary value of police officers.
- Disposes of argument that procedural delays in deposit of sample property, absent evidence of tampering or prejudice, vitiate conviction.
- Mere absence of local witnesses (in isolated locations) does not cast doubt if official testimony is trustworthy.
- Lawyers should carefully scrutinize cross-examination of police witnesses, as the court will rely on their testimony if unshaken and consistent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of police officials’ evidence, without independent witnesses, in narcotics offences.
- Relied on Supreme Court decisions (Pramod Kumar, Baldev Singh, Surinder Kumar) holding that the testimony of police officers can be the sole basis for conviction so long as it is reliable and inspires confidence; there is no general presumption against police witnesses.
- Analyzed testimony of relevant police officials and found no material inconsistencies, animosity, or motives for false implication. The witnesses’ evidence was found to be consistent and unshaken in cross-examination.
- Dismissed the challenge to the lack of independent witnesses due to the recovery having occurred in an isolated location.
- Addressed procedural delay in deposit of case property at the Malkhana (police storage), found no evidence of tampering or prejudice, and held that such delay alone cannot vitiate the prosecution.
- Held that the trial court properly appreciated the facts and law, and that the conviction warranted no interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Prosecution failed to prove exclusive and conscious possession of recovered narcotics.
- No independent witness was associated; case is based solely on testimonies of police officials, who may be biased and interested in a favorable outcome.
- Delay in depositing case property at the Malkhana caused serious prejudice to the accused.
Respondent (State):
- Charges were duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution evidence.
- Testimony of police officers was reliable and credible.
- No prejudice or tampering established regarding the delay in depositing the substances.
Factual Background
On 24.02.2021, during a routine police patrolling operation at Bajura Nala on the Bhota to Saloni road, the accused was stopped on a white scooty. A search of the scooty’s dickey led to the recovery of a red carry bag containing 9.54 grams of charas and 5.25 grams of heroin/chitta. The proceedings were conducted in the presence of police officials; no independent witnesses were available due to the isolated location. After investigation and forensic analysis, the accused was charged under Sections 20 and 21 of the NDPS Act. He denied the charges, claiming false implication, and did not adduce any evidence in defense.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 20 & 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were applied, covering possession of charas and heroin/chitta.
- Court referenced Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding appellate procedure.
- The judgment interpreted provisions to hold that corroboration by independent witnesses is not a legal requirement where evidence of police officials is found reliable.
- Emphasis was placed on judicial scrutiny of the quality of police evidence rather than its quantity or origin.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.