Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case: “Inconsistent Prosecution Evidence and Hostile Witnesses Fail to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Court’s Decision

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State’s application seeking leave to appeal against the trial court’s acquittal of the accused in an NDPS case. The court found that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly concerning the location of recovery of contraband. The trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was held to be a plausible view, warranting no interference.

Facts

The accused was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing 259 grams of cannabis. The case against him was based on the following sequence of events:

1. The Incident: The police were patrolling near a bus stand when they spotted the accused carrying a green backpack. On noticing the police, the accused allegedly became frightened, entered a shop, and threw contraband behind a water tank and into a drain.
2. Recovery Process: The police claimed to have recovered cannabis from both locations, weighed and sealed it, and followed the necessary procedural steps.
3. Prosecution’s Witnesses: The case relied on police officials and independent witnesses. However, independent witnesses denied witnessing the recovery or the events as described by the police.
4. Trial Outcome: The trial court acquitted the accused, citing major contradictions in the evidence and the lack of credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite contradictions in witness testimonies?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State, challenging the trial court’s decision, argued:

• Hostile Witnesses: Independent witnesses turned hostile but admitted their signatures on seizure documents, which should have been considered proof of their involvement in the recovery process.
• Minor Contradictions: The trial court exaggerated minor contradictions, which are bound to occur over time, to dismiss the prosecution’s case.
• Motive for False Implication Unproven: The accused’s claim of being falsely implicated by the police due to enmity was unsupported by evidence.
• Improper Evaluation of Evidence: The trial court disregarded crucial prosecution evidence without sufficient justification.

Respondent’s Arguments

The accused primarily relied on the findings of the trial court. He maintained his plea of innocence and argued that the prosecution failed to establish its case.

Analysis of the Law

The court reviewed the principles governing appeals against acquittals:

1. Presumption of Innocence: Citing Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), the court highlighted that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. Appellate courts must have compelling reasons to overturn such a decision.
2. Two-Views Doctrine: The court emphasized that if two plausible views exist, the one favoring the accused must prevail. This is rooted in the principle of reasonable doubt and the reinforced presumption of innocence after an acquittal.
3. Consistency of Evidence: Referring to Krishnan v. State (2003), the court reiterated that prosecution evidence must be consistent with other testimonies and undisputed facts. Contradictions in material aspects weaken the case.
4. Approach to Appeals: The court relied on precedents like Sanjeev v. State of H.P. (2022) to stress that appellate courts should avoid interfering with acquittals unless there is evidence of illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings.

Precedent Analysis

• Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024): Appeals against acquittals require a higher threshold of proof. A decision based on plausible reasoning cannot be overturned solely due to a difference of opinion.
• Krishnan v. State (2003): Emphasized the importance of consistency in witness testimonies and the alignment of evidence with undisputed facts.
• David Piper v. Mark Hales (2013): Stressed the role of contemporaneous evidence and the need for witnesses’ accounts to align with objective facts.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Hostile Independent Witnesses: Independent witnesses denied witnessing the recovery, and their testimonies contradicted the police’s version. This rendered the prosecution’s case weak.
2. Inconsistent Statements: Police officials provided conflicting accounts about the location of recovery. Some stated it occurred on the ground floor, while others claimed it was on the first floor. These discrepancies raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Procedural Lapses: The site plan and evidence presented were inconsistent with witness testimonies, further undermining the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
4. Credibility of Witnesses: The court cited Krishnan v. State to underline the importance of consistency in witness testimonies and objective evidence, which was lacking in this case.
5. Reasonable View by Trial Court: The trial court’s decision was based on plausible reasoning and did not suffer from illegality or perversity. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with this view.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. It ruled that the application for leave to appeal failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for interference. The appeal was dismissed.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that acquittals carry a higher presumption of correctness. It highlights the necessity of consistency and credibility in prosecution evidence and serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement to ensure procedural accuracy in NDPS cases. The decision underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to overturn acquittals without strong justification, preserving the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act: “Illegal Activities Must Threaten Public Order, Not Merely Breach Law and Order, to Justify Detention”