The High Court clarifies that interference with acquittals under the NDPS Act is justified only where the trial court’s order is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and where no two reasonable views are possible; upholds binding Supreme Court precedent, and has binding value for future appeals in criminal law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/346/2015 of STATE OF HP Vs KANSHI RAM |
| CNR | HPHC010141602015 |
| Date of Registration | 03-09-2015 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent on limited appellate interference in acquittal appeals. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, appellate jurisdiction, standards for interfering with acquittals. |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate court’s power to review and reappreciate evidence in appeals against acquittal is well-recognized, but interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or where only one reasonable view (of guilt) is possible. The court affirmed that a presumption of innocence is reinforced after acquittal, and merely strong suspicion or a different possible view does not warrant reversal. In the present case, contradictions, lack of independent witnesses, and missing links in the prosecution’s case undermine proof beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s acquittal is a plausible view and cannot be disturbed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court discussed the “double presumption” of innocence after acquittal, and the requirement that appellate interference is justified only in cases of patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or where no other reasonable view is possible. Phraseologies like “substantial and compelling reasons” are only rhetorical and do not curtail appellate power, but reluctance to overturn acquittals remains. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Accused were apprehended during a police patrol; were offered search by magistrate/gazetted officer, but consented to be searched by police. Contraband (charas) allegedly recovered from their possession. Prosecution examined nine witnesses, while four witnesses were examined by defense. Trial court acquitted the accused, finding contradictions and lack of independent corroboration; State appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; binding on Trial Courts in NDPS acquittal appeals within the State. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; can be cited for principles governing appellate interference in acquittal, especially in NDPS cases. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate courts will not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or unsupported by evidence.
- Double presumption of innocence is reinforced after acquittal, making reversal more difficult.
- Material contradictions, lack of independent witnesses, or broken chain of custody are fatal to prosecution appeals.
- Minor discrepancies and absence of conclusive proof mean benefit of doubt goes to the accused in NDPS cases.
- The judgment methodically restates and applies the Supreme Court’s tests and threshold for appellate intervention.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court cited and relied upon leading Supreme Court cases regarding the limited scope of appellate interference with acquittals, including Surendra Singh, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, Rajesh Prasad, Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund, Sadhu Saran Singh, and Harijan Bhala Teja.
- Major principles: Appellate courts have full power to review evidence, but interference with acquittal is only justified where the trial court’s decision is perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, and where only one reasonable conclusion (guilt) is possible.
- The presumption of innocence is doubled after acquittal; merely preferring another view does not justify reversal.
- The court reappreciated the evidence and found several contradictions: discrepancies in timing and presence of police at the spot; inconsistencies in manner of search and the nature of the sample packaging; non-examination of key witnesses; unexplained variation in sample weights; failure to establish continuous chain of custody.
- Held that the prosecution failed to prove conscious and exclusive possession of contraband; trial court’s view is plausible and not perverse.
- The benefit of doubt to the accused and limited appellate jurisdiction both applied; appeal dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State)
- Challenged the acquittal as erroneous based on evaluation of evidence.
- Sought reversal by pointing to the oral and documentary evidence supporting recovery of charas.
Respondents (Accused)
- Denied any possession or involvement.
- Pointed to contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
- Raised the defense of false implication.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR registered on 18.12.2008 under Section 20 read with Section 29 NDPS Act, alleging recovery of charas from two accused during a police patrol in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The accused were allegedly carrying polythene bags containing charas, gave consent for search on spot, and were arrested. The prosecution’s evidence included police officials; no independent witness was associated. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution version inconsistent; the State appealed the acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act interpreted in context of “conscious possession” and burden of proof.
- Section 378 CrPC (appeal against acquittal) discussed extensively – court analysed its limits and the special threshold for interfering in acquittals.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions; both judges concurred in the reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were set in this judgment. The case followed traditional appellate procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court precedent on appellate interference in criminal acquittals.