18.03.2026 vs Of on 4 May, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 18.03.2026 vs Of on 4 May, 2026

                                                                                      2026:HHC:14303


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 39 of 2025
                                                Reserved on: 18.03.2026




                                                                                   .
                                                Date of Decision: 04.05.2026






    Karan Kumar                                                                    ...Appellant


                                               Versus




                                                     of
    State of H.P.                                                                ...Respondent


    Coram
                           rt

    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the Appellants                     :     Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate.



    For the Respondent/State :                   Mr Jitender Sharma,                       Additional
                                                 Advocate General.






    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2025, passed by

learned Chairman H.P. State Waqf Tribunal Exercising the powers

of Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial

Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial

Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:14303

under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act (NDPS) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

.

for five years, pay a fine of ₹1 lakh and in default of payment of fine

to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year for the

commission of the aforesaid offence. (Parties shall hereinafter be

referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned

of
Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal
rt
are that the police presented a challan against the accused before

the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence

punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that

Head Constable (HC) Deepak (PW13), Constable Amit Kumar

(PW11), and HC Rocky (PW10) were on patrolling duty on 11.07.019.

They saw the accused at about 2:45 PM coming towards Indora

curve. He was looking over his shoulder. The police became

suspicious of the activities of the accused and went towards him.

The accused started running away after seeing the police. He took

out one packet from his knicker and threw it towards the bushes.

The police apprehended the accused after a distance of 10-15 steps

and brought him near the bushes where he had thrown the packet.

Nikhil Mehra (PW12) reached the spot in the meantime. The police

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
3

2026:HHC:14303

joined him in the investigation. The accused revealed his name as

Karan Kumar after the enquiry. HC Deepak (PW13) checked the

.

packet and found 6.18 grams of heroin in it. He prepared a memo of

identification (Ext.P32/PW11). He put the packet into an empty

matchbox (Ext.MO2), the matchbox into a cloth parcel (Ext.MO1)

and sealed the parcel with six impressions of seal ‘S’. He also

of
prepared the NCB-1 Form (Ext.P29/PW9) and put the seal

impression on the NCB-1 Form. He obtained a seal impression
rt
(Ext.P33/PW11) on a separate piece of cloth and handed over the

seal to witness Nikhil Mehra after its use. Constable Rocky (PW10)

took the photographs (Ext.P4/PW2 to Ext.P18/PW2) of the

proceedings. HC Deepak (PW13) suspected that the accused might

be in possession of some contraband. Hence, he told the accused

about his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted

Officer. The accused consented to be searched before the

Magistrate vide Memo (Ext.P35/PW11). The accused was searched

before Gian Chand (PW7), Tehsildar, Indora and no incriminating

substance was found in his possession. Memo (Ext.P26/PW7) was

prepared. HC Deepak (PW13) prepared the rukka (Ext. P36/PW13)

and handed it over to Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) with a

direction to take it to the Police Station. Constable Amit (PW11)

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
4

2026:HHC:14303

handed over the rukka to Ajeet Kumar (PW9), who registered the

FIR (Ext.P27/PW9). SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) investigated the

.

matter. He went to the spot. HC Deepak (PW13) handed over the

case property and the documents to SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) vide

memo (Ext.P31/PW10). SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) prepared the spot

map (Ext.P37/PW14) and recorded the statements of witnesses as

of
per their version. SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) went to the Police

Station along with the accused and the case property after the
rt
completion of the investigation. He produced the case property, the

accused and the case file before Ajeet Kumar (PW9), who verified

the seals on the parcel and resealed it with his seal ‘T’ at three

places. He obtained the sample seal ‘T’ on a separate piece of cloth

(Ext.P28/PW9), filled the relevant columns of the NCB-1 form, put

the seal impressions ‘T’ on the NCB-1 form, and issued the re-

sealing certificate (Ext.P30/PW9). He handed over the case

property and the documents to ASI Vinay Kumar (PW15), who

made an entry in the malkhana register at S. No. 68/19

(Ext.P43/PW15) and deposited the case property in Malkhana. ASI

Vinay Kumar (PW15) handed over the case property to SI Kuldeep

Chand (PW14) on 12.07.2019 for the certification of the inventory.

SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) produced the case property before the

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
5

2026:HHC:14303

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, along with an

application (Ext.P39/PW14) and index (Ext.P4/PW14). Learned

.

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, issued the certificate

(Ext.P41/PW14). Photographs of the proceedings (Ext.P20/PW5 to

P22/PW5) were taken. SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) handed over the

case property to ASI Vinay Kumar (PW15), who deposited it in

of
Malkhana and made an entry in the Malkhana register. ASI Vinay

Kumar (PW15) handed over the case property, documents and
rt
sample seal to LHC Kuljeet (PW4) on 14.07.2019, with a direction to

carry them to State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) vide RC No.

55/21 (Ext.P44/PW15). LHC Kuljeet (PW4) handed over the case

property, documents and the sample seal at SFSL Junga and

handed over the receipt to MHC on his return. Kuldeep Chand

(PW14) prepared a special report (Ext. P2/PW1) on 13.07.2019 and

handed it over to Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Nurpur

through HHG Rashpal (PW8). SDPO Sahil Arora made the

endorsement on the special report and handed it over to his Reader

ASI Dharampal (PW1). ASI Dharampal made an entry in the register

of special report at Sl. No.41 (Ext.P1/PW1) and retained the special

report on record. The result of the analysis (Ext.PX) was issued,

stating that the exhibit stated as heroin, was a sample of

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
6

2026:HHC:14303

diacetylmorphine (heroin). The statements of witnesses were

recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the

.

investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the

learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon

the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the

of
commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS

Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

rt

4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its

case. ASI Dharam Pal (PW1) was working as a Reader to SDPO

Nurpur, to whom the special report was handed over. Rajinder

Singh (PW2) and Sham Lal (PW5) developed the photographs. HHC

Jagdev Chand (PW3) brought the case property and the result of

analysis from SFSL, Junga. HC Kuljeet (PW4) carried the case

property, documents and sample seal to SFSL Junga. LHHC Aruna

Kumari (PW6) proved the entry in the daily diary. Gian Chand

(PW7) was working as Tehsildar, in whose presence the personal

search of the accused was conducted. HHG Rashpal Singh (PW8)

carried the special report to SDPO. Ajeet Kumar (PW9) signed the

FIR and resealed the case property. HC Rocky (PW10), Constable

Amit Kumar (PW11), Nikhil Mehra (PW12) and HC Deepak (PW13)

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
7

2026:HHC:14303

witnessed the recovery. SI Kuldeep Chand (PW14) investigated the

matter. ASI Vinay Kumar (PW15) was working as an MHC with

.

whom the case property was deposited.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under section

313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He

stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. He did not

of
produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the statements of
rt
prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. It was a case of a

chance recovery, and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act

did not apply to it. The statements of prosecution witnesses

corroborated each other. Nikhil Mehra (PW12) admitted in his

cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that the

packet was lifted from the bushes, and it was found to contain

heroin. He also admitted his signature on the memo and the other

steps taken by the police during the investigation. His testimony

could be relied upon to the extent it supported the prosecution’s

case. There was nothing in the cross-examination of the

prosecution’s witnesses to show that they were making false

statements or had any motive to depose against the accused. The

statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be discarded

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
8

2026:HHC:14303

simply because they happen to be Police Officials. The integrity of

the case property was duly established. The failure to produce the

.

seal in the Court was not fatal. The result of the analysis showed

that the samples contained diacetylmorphine. The prosecution had

proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt for the commission of

an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the

of
learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as

aforesaid. rt

7. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by

the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal

asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the

material placed before it. The prosecution had failed to prove that

the recovery was made from exclusive and conscious possession of

the accused. The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted

each other on material aspects. Nikhil Mehra (PW12) did not

support the prosecution’s case, and this was sufficient to reject the

prosecution’s version. The seals were not produced before the

Court for comparison, and this was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

No independent witness was associated despite the opportunity

and availability. The learned Trial Court has imposed an excessive

sentence without any justification. Hence, it was prayed that the

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
9

2026:HHC:14303

present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by

the learned Trial Court be set aside.

.

8. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent/State.

9. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner,

of
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely

implicated. The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted
rt
each other on material aspects. Anil Mehra was associated as an

independent witness, but he failed to support the prosecution’s

case, which made the prosecution’s version highly doubtful. The

place of the incident was located in a busy locality, but the police

did not join any independent witnesses during the investigation,

which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The seal was not produced

before the Court, and there was nothing with the Court to compare

the seal impression on the parcel. The learned Trial Court ignored

all the circumstances and wrongly convicted the accused. The

sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is disproportionate,

and no justification was provided for imposing such a harsh

sentence. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
10

2026:HHC:14303

the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set

aside.

.

10. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution

witnesses corroborated each other on material aspects. Minor

contradictions were bound to come with time due to the failure of

of
memory. Anil Mehra had supported the prosecution’s version

regarding the material aspects after he was cross-examined by the
rt
learned Public Prosecutor. The non-production of the seal before

the Court is not fatal. The heroin is adversely affecting society, and

a deterrent sentence was required to be imposed in the present

case. Learned Trial Court had rightly imposed a sentence of five

years imprisonment, and no leniency should be shown to the

accused. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

12. HC Rocky (PW10) stated that he, HC Deepak and

Constable Amit Kumar had left the office for patrolling on

11.07.20219. They reached the Indora curve at about 2:45 PM when

they saw the accused. The activities of the accused were suspicious,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
11

2026:HHC:14303

and they went towards the accused. The accused turned around and

tried to run away. He took out one packet from his left pocket and

.

threw it on the roadside towards the bushes. The police

apprehended the accused after a distance of 10-15 steps. He

revealed his name as Karan Kumar. He was brought to the spot

where he had thrown the packet. One person was going towards the

of
school. He was called, and he revealed his name as Nikhil Mehra.

The police picked up the packet thrown by the accused and checked
rt
it. It contained a transparent polythene packet containing some

light-yellow substance. The substance was tested and was found to

be heroin. The identification memo was prepared, and the

substance was weighed. Its weight was found to be 6.18 grams

along with the polythene packet. The packet was put inside an

empty matchbox, and the matchbox was put in a cloth parcel. The

parcel was sealed with six seals of seal ‘S’. The NCB-1 Form was

filled in triplicate. Sample seal impression was taken on the form

and a separate piece of cloth. The seal was handed over to Nikhil

Mehra after its use. The parcel, form and sample seal were seized

vide seizure memo. The accused was told about his right to be

searched before a Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, and the

accused opted to be searched by the Magistrate. The Investigating

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
12

2026:HHC:14303

Officer requested Tehsildar Indora to visit the spot. Tehsildar Gian

Chand arrived on the spot. The personal search of the accused was

.

conducted in the presence of Gian Chand, but no incriminating

material was recovered. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police

Station. He photographed the proceedings.

13. He stated in his cross-examination that the police party

of
had reached Indora curve at about 2:45 PM, and the accused was

noticed immediately after the arrival. No nakka was laid at any
rt
place. They stayed at Damtal and had lunch. No vehicle was

checked during the patrolling. Witness Nikhil was noticed near the

spot at about 3 PM after the accused was apprehended. The

knickers worn by the accused had two pockets. Tehsildar arrived on

the spot at about 4:30 PM and left at about 5:10-5:15 PM. It took

about 20 minutes to write the rukka. Constable Amit went to the

Police Station on foot and arrived before the arrival of the second

Investigating Officer. The second Investigating Officer and one

Constable arrived on the spot on a motorcycle. The first

Investigating Officer remained on the spot till 8:30-9 PM. He, HC

Deepak and Constable Amit Kumar returned from the spot at about

8:45-9 PM. No videography was conducted. The factory was

located at a distance of 100-150 meters from the spot, and the

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
13

2026:HHC:14303

school is located at a distance of about 300 meters from the spot.

The proceedings on the spot were conducted by the Investigating

.

Officer, sitting on the spot. He denied that nothing was recovered

from the accused.

14. Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) supported the

prosecution’s case in his examination-in-chief, and it is not being

of
reproduced to avoid prolixity and repetition. He stated in his cross-

examination that the police officials started from the office at
rt
about 8-10 AM in a private vehicle of HC Deepak Kumar (PW13).

They reached the spot at about 2:40 PM. They had not checked any

vehicle on the spot. They had reached Damtal at 12 PM, and they

had stopped for some time at Damtal. They were at Jassur at 11 AM.

They had not checked any vehicle during the patrolling. The

accused was noticed at about 2:45 PM. The Tehsildar arrived along

with the driver on the spot. The writing of rukka commenced at

about 6 PM and was completed at about 6:30 PM. He went on foot

to the Police Station. He returned with the case file to the spot at

about 7:15-7:20 PM. Tehsildar, Indora, remained on the spot for

about 40 minutes. They had not given their search to the accused.

The second Investigating Officer arrived about five minutes after

his arrival. The second Investigating Officer arrived on a

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
14

2026:HHC:14303

motorcycle. The factory was located at a distance of about 100-150

meters from the spot. He admitted that the workers remain present

.

in the factory 24 hours a day. He admitted that Greenland School is

located at a distance of about 250-300 meters from the spot. He,

the first Investigating Officer and Constable Rocky left the spot at

about 9 PM. The second Investigating Officer prepared the

of
document by sitting on the spot. He denied that no recovery was

effected in his presence.

rt

15. Head Constable Deepak (PW13) also supported the

prosecution’s case in his examination-in-chief, and the same is

not being reproduced to avoid repetition. He stated in his cross-

examination that they reached the Indora curve at about 2:45 PM.

They had not laid any Nakka. They were walking on the road when

they saw the accused. They had proceeded from Kangra at about

8:10 PM. They stayed at Jassur for half an hour and at Damtal for 1-

1 ½ hours. They were travelling in a private vehicle owned by him.

They had not checked any vehicle at Jassur and Damtal. They had

seen the accused at a distance of 15-20 steps. All the police team

went to apprehend the accused. The accused was brought to the

spot. The witness, Anil Mehra, was coming on foot. Tehsildar came

to the spot at about 4:30 PM and remained on the spot for about 45

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
15

2026:HHC:14303

minutes. The second Investigating Officer arrived on the spot after

the departure of the Tehsildar. The second Investigating Officer

.

came to the spot at 7:15 PM along with the Constable in a private

vehicle. Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) departed from the spot with

rukka at about 6:30 PM. He wrote the rukka at about 5:40 p.m., and

it took about 45 minutes to write. Constable Amit Kumar (PW11)

of
proceeded from the spot on foot and returned at about 7:15 PM. He,

Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) and Constable Rocky (PW10)
rt
departed from the spot at about 9 PM. The factory was located at a

distance of 150 meters from the spot. He stitched the parcel and

wrote the documents on the spot by sitting on the roadside. The

second Investigating Officer had the mobile light with him. The

independent witness remained on the spot till his departure. He

denied that no recovery was effected from the accused.

16. It was submitted that the factory and the school were

located in the vicinity, and no person was associated with the

factory or the school, which would make the prosecution’s case

highly suspect. This submission cannot be accepted. The police

officials consistently stated that they were on patrol duty. They

saw the accused coming towards him at Indora curve. He was

acting suspiciously, and the police proceeded towards the accused,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
16

2026:HHC:14303

who started running away. Therefore, it was a case of a chance

recovery. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

.

Kashmira Singh Versus State of Punjab 1999 (1) SCC 130 that the

police party is under no obligation to join independent witnesses

while going on patrolling duty, and the association of any person

after effecting the recovery would be meaningless. It was

of
observed:

“3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through
rt
the evidence recorded by the prosecution, as also the
judgment under appeal. Except for the comment that the

prosecution is supported by two police officials and not by
any independent witness, no other comment against the
prosecution is otherwise offered. This comment is not of any
value since the police party was on patrolling duty, and they

were not required to take along independent witnesses to
support recovery if and when made. It has come to the
evidence of ASI Jangir Singh that after the recovery had been

effected, some people had passed by. Even so, obtaining
their counter-signatures on the documents already prepared

would not have lent any further credence to the
prosecution’s version.”

17. In similar circumstances, it was laid down by this court

in Chet Ram Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 151/2006, decided on

25.7.2018, that when the accused was apprehended after he tried to

flee on seeing the police, there was no necessity to associate any

person from the nearby village. It was observed: –

“(A)appellant was intercepted, and a search of his bag was
conducted on suspicion, when he turned back and tried to

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
17

2026:HHC:14303

flee, on seeing the police. Police officials did not have any
prior information, nor did they have any reason to believe
that he was carrying any contraband. They overpowered
him when he tried to run away and suspected that he might

.

be carrying some contraband in his bag. Therefore, the bag

was searched, and Charas was recovered. After the recovery of
Charas, there was hardly any need to associate with any person
from the nearby village because there was nothing to be

witnessed.

It is by now well settled that non-association of independent

of
witnesses or non-support of the prosecution’s version by
independent witnesses where they are associated, by itself, is
not a ground to acquit an accused. It is also well-settled that
the testimony of official witnesses, including police officials,
rt
carries the same evidentiary value as the testimony of any
other person. The only difference is that Courts have to be

more circumspect while appreciating the evidence of official
witnesses to rule out the possibility of false implication of
the accused, especially when such a plea is specifically raised
by the defence. Therefore, while scrutinising the evidence of

official witnesses, in a case where independent witnesses are
not associated, contradictions and inconsistencies in the
testimony of such witnesses are required to be taken into

account and given due weightage unless satisfactorily
explained. Of course, it is only the material contradictions

and not the trivial ones, which assume significance.”
(Emphasis supplied)

18. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in Raveen Kumar v. State of H.P., (2021) 12 SCC 557: (2023) 2 SCC (Cri)

230: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 869 that non-association of the

independent witnesses will not be fatal to the prosecution case.

However, the Court will have to scrutinise the statements of

prosecution witnesses carefully. It was observed on page 566:

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
18

2026:HHC:14303

“(C) Need for independent witnesses

19. It would be gainsaid that the lack of independent
witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. [Kalpnath
Rai v. State, (1997) 8 SCC 732: 1998 SCC (Cri) 134: AIR 1998 SC

.

201, para 9] However, such omissions cast an added duty on
courts to adopt a greater degree of care while scrutinising
the testimonies of the police officers, which, if found

reliable, can form the basis of a successful conviction.”

19. This position was reiterated in Rizwan Khan v. State of

of
Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 730, wherein it

was observed at page 633:

rt
“12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official
witnesses cannot be rejected on the grounds of non-

corroboration by independent witnesses. As observed and
held by this Court in a catena of decisions, examination of
independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement
and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the

prosecution’s case [see Pardeep Kumar [State of
H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar, (2018) 13 SCC 808: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri)
420]].

13. In the recent decision in Surinder Kumar v. State of

Punjab [Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563:

(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 767], while considering somewhat similar
submission of non-examination of independent witnesses,

while dealing with the offence under the NDPS Act, in paras
15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under: (SCC p.

568)
“15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab [Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521:

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1191], relied on by the counsel for the
respondent State, also supports the case of the
prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has
held that merely because the prosecution did not examine
any independent witness would not necessarily lead to a
conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
19

2026:HHC:14303

evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and
disbelieved merely on account of their official status.

16. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652: 2001 SCC (Cri) 248], it was

.

held as under: (SCC p. 655)
‘It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer
should be approached with initial distrust. It is time

now to start placing at least initial trust in the actions
and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the
court cannot start with the presumption that the

of
police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of
law, the presumption should be the other way around.
That official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
rt
recognised even by the legislature.’

20. Similar is the judgment of this Court in Balwinder Singh

& Anr. Vs State of H.P., 2020 Criminal L.J. 1684, wherein it was held: –

“3. (iii) Learned defence counsel contended that in the
instant case, no independent witness was associated by the
Investigating Officer; therefore, the prosecution case cannot

be said to have been proved by it in accordance with
provisions of the Act. Learned defence counsel, in support of

his contention, relied upon the titled Krishan Chand versus
State of H.P.,2017 4 CriCC 531
3(iii)(d). It is by now well settled that a prosecution case

cannot be disbelieved only because the independent
witnesses were not associated.”

21. This position was reiterated in Kallu Khan v. State of

Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1223, wherein it

was held at page 204: –

“17. The issue raised regarding conviction solely relying
upon the testimony of police witnesses, without procuring

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
20

2026:HHC:14303

any independent witness, recorded by the two courts, has
also been dealt with by this Court in Surinder Kumar
[Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 767] holding that merely because independent

.

witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be

drawn that the accused was falsely implicated. Therefore,
the said issue is also well settled and in particular, looking at
the facts of the present case, when the conduct of the

accused was found suspicious, and a chance recovery from
the vehicle used by him is made from a public place and
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant cannot

of
avail any benefit on this issue. In our view, the concurrent
findings of the courts do not call for interference.”

22. A similar view was taken in Kehar Singh v. State of H.P.,
rt
2024 SCC OnLine HP 2825, wherein it was observed:

16. As regards non-association of the independent
witnesses, it is now well settled that non-association of the
independent witnesses or non-support of the prosecution

version by independent witnesses itself is not a ground for
acquittal of the Appellants/accused. It is also well-settled
that the testimonies of the official witnesses, including

police officials, carry the same evidentiary value as the
testimony of any other person. The only difference is that

the Court has to be most circumspect while appreciating the
evidence of the official witnesses to rule out the possibility
of false implication of the accused, especially when such a

plea is specifically raised by the defence. Therefore, while
scrutinising the evidence of the official witnesses, in cases
where independent witnesses are not associated,
contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
such witnesses are required to be taken into account and
given due weightage unless satisfactorily explained.

However, the contradiction must be a material and not
trivial one, which alone would assume significance.

17. Evidently, this is a case of chance recovery; therefore, the
police party was under no obligation to join independent

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
21

2026:HHC:14303

witnesses while going on patrolling duty, and the
association of any person after effecting the recovery would
be meaningless.

Xxxx

.

19. A similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Avtar @
Tarri v. State of H.P., (2022) Supreme HP 345, wherein it was

observed as under: —

“24. As regards the second leg of the argument raised by
learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said to be

of
of much relevance in the given facts of the case. The fact
situation was that the police party had laid the ‘nakka’
and immediately thereafter had spotted the appellant at
rt
some distance, who got perplexed and started walking
back. The conduct of the appellant was sufficient to raise
suspicion in the minds of police officials. At that stage,

had the appellant not been apprehended immediately, the
police could have lost the opportunity to recover the
contraband. Looking from another angle, the relevance of

independent witnesses could be there when such
witnesses were immediately available or had already been
associated at the place of ‘nakka’. These, however, are

not mandatory conditions and will always depend on the
fact situation of each and every case. The reason is that

once the person is apprehended and is with the police, a
subsequent association of independent witnesses may
not be of much help. In such events, the manipulation, if

any, cannot be ruled out.”

Xxxx

22. A similar reiteration of law can be found in a very recent
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. A. No.
202 of 2020, titled Dillo Begum v. State of H.P., decided on
27.03.2024.”

23. The police had found Nikhil Mehra (PW12) walking on

the road and joined him. It was not suggested to any person that

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
22

2026:HHC:14303

any other person was present on the spot, and the police had not

deliberately joined him. Therefore, the prosecution’s case cannot

.

be doubted because no independent person was joined.

24. Nikhil Mehra (PW12) stated that the police had called

him and obtained his signature on some documents. No recovery

was effected from the accused in his presence. He was permitted to

of
be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He admitted

that he was called by the police on 11.07.2019, towards the link road
rt
leading to the factory. He admitted that the police disclosed their

identity to him and enquired about his name and address. He

admitted that the accused was present with the police officials. He

admitted that police had disclosed to him that the accused had

thrown some article in the bushes in their presence. He admitted

that the packet was lifted from the bushes, and it was found to

contain a light-yellow substance. He admitted that the substance

was tested, and it was found to be heroin. He admitted that police

had prepared the memo (Ext. 32/PW11) and he had signed the

memo. He admitted that heroin was weighed, and its weight was

found to be 6.18 grams. He did not remember that the packet was

put in an empty matchbox, and the empty matchbox was put in a

cloth parcel. He did not remember that the NCB-1 Form was filed in

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
23

2026:HHC:14303

triplicate and that the seal impression was put on the NCB-1 Form.

He admitted his signature on the seizure memo (Ext.P34/PW11),

.

sample seal (Ext.P33/PW11) and the consent memo (Ext.P35/PW11).

He admitted that the Investigating Officer requested Tehsildar

Indora to visit the spot, and Tehsildar Indora Sh. Gian Chand

arrived on the spot at 4:30 PM. He admitted that the Investigating

of
Officer searched the accused, but no incriminating substance was

found in his possession. He admitted his signature on the memo of
rt
the personal search. He admitted that the rukka was prepared and

sent to the Police Station through a Police Officer. He identified

himself in the photographs of the spot. He admitted that the police

had recorded his statement on the spot. He admitted that all the

documents were written before he had signed them. He stated in

his cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence that the

accused was already apprehended and the contraband was lying on

the spot. He admitted that the weighing balance was also put on

the spot. He admitted that his signatures were obtained in one go.

25. The statement of this witness materially corroborates

the prosecution’s version. He has admitted the prosecution’s case

regarding the picking up of the packet in his presence and the

recovery of the heroin from the packet. He admitted that heroin

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
24

2026:HHC:14303

was tested and weighed in his presence. He admitted his signature

on various documents. He was not cross-examined regarding all

.

these aspects. He was only cross-examined regarding the presence

of the accused before his arrival and the packet lying on the spot;

therefore, this part of the statement is deemed to be accepted. It

was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar

of
Pradesh Versus Nahar Singh 1998 (3) SCC 561 that where the

testimony of a witness is not challenged in the cross-examination,
rt
the same cannot be challenged during the arguments. This position

was reiterated in Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC

1: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 208: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 4, and it was held at

page 34:

“58. A witness is required to be cross-examined in a
criminal trial to test his veracity; to discover who he is and

what his position in life is, or to shake his credit, by injuring
his character, although the answer to such questions may
directly or indirectly incriminate him or may directly or

indirectly expose him to a penalty or forfeiture (Section 146
of the Evidence Act). A witness is required to be cross-
examined to bring forth inconsistencies and discrepancies,
and to prove the untruthfulness of the witness. A-1 set up a
case of his arrest on 1-9-2014 from 18:50 hrs; therefore, it
was required for him to cross-examine the truthfulness of
the prosecution witnesses with regard to that particular
aspect. The argument that the accused was shown to be
arrested around 19:00 hrs is an incorrect reading of the
arrest form (Ex. 17). In Column 8, it has been specifically
mentioned that the accused was taken into custody on 2-9-

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
25

2026:HHC:14303

2014 at 14:30 hrs at Wanjri Layout, Police Station, Kalamna.
The time, i.e. 17, 10 hrs mentioned in Column 2, appears to
be when A-1 was brought to the Police Station, Lakadganj. As
per the IO, A-1 was called for interrogation as the suspicion

.

was on an employee of Dr Chandak since the kidnapper was

wearing a red colour t-shirt which was given by Dr Chandak
to his employees. A-1 travelled from the stage of suspect to
an accused only on 2-9-2014. Since no cross-examination

was conducted on any of the prosecution witnesses about
the place and manner of the arrest, the argument that the
accused was arrested on 1-9-2014 at 18:50 hrs is not tenable.

of

59. The House of Lords, in a judgment reported as Browne v.
Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL), considered the principles of
appreciation of evidence. Lord Chancellor Herschell held
rt
that it is absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a
cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not

speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his
attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-
examination showing that imputation is intended to be
made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter

altogether unchallenged. It was held as follows:

“Now, my Lords, I cannot help saying that it seems to me
to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a

cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not
speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his

attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-
examination showing that that imputation is intended to

be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a
matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is
impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have
been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the
circumstances which it is suggested indicate that the
story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is
a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always
understood that if you intend to impeach a witness you
are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an
opportunity of making any explanation which is open to
him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of
professional practice in the conduct of a case, but is

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
26

2026:HHC:14303

essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.
Sometimes reflections have been made upon excessive
cross-examination of witnesses, and it has been
complained of as undue, but it seems to me that cross-

.

examination of a witness which errs in the direction of

excess may be far more fair to him than to leave him
without cross-examination, and afterwards, to suggest
that he is not a witness of truth, I mean upon a point on

which it is not otherwise clear that he has had full notice
beforehand that there is an intention to impeach the
credibility of the story which he is telling.”

of

60. Lord Halsbury, in a separate but concurring opinion, held as
under:

“My Lords, with regard to the manner in which the
rt
evidence was given in this case, I cannot too heartily
express my concurrence with the Lord Chancellor as to

the mode in which a trial should be conducted. To my
mind, nothing would be more absolutely unjust than not
to cross-examine witnesses upon evidence which they
have given, so as to give them notice, and to give them an

opportunity of explanation, and an opportunity very
often to defend their own character, and, not having
given them such an opportunity, to ask the jury

afterwards to disbelieve what they have said, although
not one question has been directed either to their credit

or to the accuracy of the facts they have deposed to.”

61. This Court, in a judgment reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar

Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561: 1998 SCC (Cri) 850, quoted from Browne v.
Dunn, (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) to hold that in the absence of cross-
examination on the explanation of delay, the evidence of PW 1
remained unchallenged and ought to have been believed by the
High Court. Section 146 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable right
of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the
opposite party. This Court held as under: (State of U.P. v. Nahar
Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561: 1998 SCC (Cri) 850], SCC pp. 566-67, para

13)
“13. It may be noted here that part of the statement of PW
1 was not cross-examined by the accused. In the absence

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
27

2026:HHC:14303

of cross-examination on the explanation of the delay, the
evidence of PW 1 remained unchallenged and ought to
have been believed by the High Court. Section 138 of the
Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining

.

the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party.

The scope of that provision is enlarged by Section 146 of
the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned:

(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what his position in life
is, or

of
(3) to shake his credit by injuring his character,
although the answer to such questions might tend
directly or indirectly to incriminate him or might
rt
expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a
penalty or forfeiture.”

62. This Court, in a judgment reported Muddasani Venkata
Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288: (2017) 1 SCC
(Civ) 268, laid down that the party is obliged to put his case in
cross-examination of witnesses of the opposite party. The rule of

putting one’s version in cross-examination is one of essential
justice and not merely a technical one. It was held as under: (SCC
pp. 294-95, paras 15-16)

“15. Moreover, there was no effective cross-examination
made on the plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to the

factum of execution of the sale deed. PW 1 and PW 2 have
not been cross-examined as to the factum of execution of

the sale deed. The cross-examination is a matter of
substance, not of procedure. One is required to put one’s
own version in the cross-examination of the opponent.
The effect of non-cross-examination is that the
statement of the witness has not been disputed. The
effect of not cross-examining the witnesses has been
considered by this Court in Bhoju Mandalv.Debnath
Bhagat, AIR 1963 SC 1906. This Court repelled a
submission on the ground that the same was not put
either to the witnesses or suggested before the courts
below. A party is required to put his version to the
witness. If no such questions are put, the Court would

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
28

2026:HHC:14303

presume that the witness account has been accepted as
held in Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Co. Ltd., 1957 SCC OnLine P&H 177: AIR 1958 P&H 440.

16. In Maroti Bansi Teli v. Radhabai, 1943 SCC OnLine MP

.

128: AIR 1945 Nag 60, it has been laid down that the
matters sworn to by one party in the pleadings not
challenged either in pleadings or cross-examination by

another party must be accepted as fully established. The
High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian,
1960 SCC OnLine Cal 44: AIR 1961 Cal 359 has laid down

of
that the party is obliged to put his case in the cross-
examination of witnesses of the opposite party. The rule
of putting one’s version in cross-examination is one of
essential justice and not merely a technical one. A
rt
Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court, Kuwarlal
Amritlal v. Rekhlal Koduram, 1949 SCC OnLine MP 35: AIR

1950 Nag 83 has laid down that when attestation is not
specifically challenged, and the witness is not cross-
examined regarding details of attestation, it is sufficient
for him to say that the document was attested. If the

other side wants to challenge that statement, it is their
duty, quite apart from raising it in the pleadings, to
cross-examine the witness along those lines. A Division

Bench of the Patna High Court in Karnidan Sardav.Sailaja
Kanta Mitra, 1940 SCC OnLine Pat 288: AIR 1940 Pat 683

has laid down that it cannot be too strongly emphasised
that the system of administration of justice allows of
cross-examination of opposite party’s witnesses for the

purpose of testing their evidence, and it must be assumed
that when the witnesses were not tested in that way, their
evidence is to be ordinarily accepted. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the High Court has gravely erred in law in
reversing the findings of the first appellate court as to the
factum of execution of the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff.”

26. It was suggested to him that the accused was present on

the spot, and he was apprehended by the police, which shows that

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
29

2026:HHC:14303

the defence has not disputed the apprehension of the accused on

the spot. It was also suggested that the packet was lying on the

.

spot, which shows that the fact that the packet was thrown on the

spot has also not been disputed in the cross-examination. It was

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v.

State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 that

of
the suggestion put to the witness can be taken into consideration

while determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. It was
rt
observed at page 383: –

“38. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the suggestion
made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-
examination, if found to be incriminating in nature in any

manner, would definitely bind the accused, and the accused
cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied
authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions

against his client.

39. Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence

counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except for
the concession on the point of law. As a legal proposition, we

cannot agree with the submission canvassed on behalf of the
appellants that an answer by a witness to a suggestion made
by the defence counsel in the cross-examination does not
deserve any value or utility if it incriminates the accused in
any manner.

****

42. Therefore, we are of the opinion that suggestions made
to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such
suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and
can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on
record to determine the guilt of the accused.”

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
30

2026:HHC:14303

27. Anil Mehra (PW2) admitted in his cross-examination

that the accused was with the police. This admission will not help

.

the defence because it is the admitted case of the prosecution that

he was called after the accused was apprehended and was brought

to the spot. The prosecution never asserted that the accused had

run away in his presence or had thrown the packet in his presence.

of
Therefore, the fact that he has not deposed about these facts will

not make the prosecution’s case suspicious.

rt

28. Thus, the learned trial Court had rightly relied upon the

statement of Anil Kumar to hold that the prosecution’s case was

corroborated by his testimony.

29. It was submitted that there are various contradictions in

the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The following

contradictions were pointed out:

i. Gian Chand (PW7) stated that he had arrived on the spot at

about 4:30 PM, and he was alone in the vehicle. HC Rocky
(PW10) stated that the Tehsildar arrived at 4:30 PM on the
spot. He was accompanied by his driver. Constable Amit also
stated in his cross-examination that Tehsildar arrived on the
spot along with the driver at 4:30 PM.

ii. HC Rocky (PW10) stated that the police party reached Indora
curve at 2:45 PM. Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) stated that
police reached the spot at 2:40 PM. HC Deepak (PW13) stated
that they reached the spot at 2:45 PM.

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
31

2026:HHC:14303

iii. Constable Amit Kumar (PW11) stated that the Investigating
Officer started writing the rukka at 6:00 PM. HC Deepak
(PW13) stated that he started writing rukka at 5:30 PM.
iv. HC Rocky (PW10) stated in his cross-examination that they

.

had stopped at Damtal and had lunch. Constable Amit Kumar
(PW11) stated in his cross-examination that they reached
Damtal at 12 PM, where they stopped for some time. They

were at Jaisur at 11:00 AM. HC Deepak (PW13) stated that
they had stayed at Jassur for about half an hour and stayed at
Damtal for about 1 ½ hours.

of

30. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Rajan v. State of Haryana,

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952, that the discrepancies in the statements
rt
of the witnesses are not sufficient to discard the prosecution case

unless they shake the core of the testimonies. It was observed: –

“32. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straitjacket formula for the appreciation

of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for
the appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be
enumerated as follows:

“I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the

approach must be whether the evidence of the witness,
read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the

Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly,
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether
the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general
tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court
which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
32

2026:HHC:14303

to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and
unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would
not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial

.

details.

III. When an eye-witness is examined at length, it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts

should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in
the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the
credibility of his version that the court is justified in

of
jettisoning his evidence.

IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, a hyper-technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the
rt
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer, not going to the

root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection
of the evidence as a whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations

falling in the narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic

approach for judicial scrutiny.

VI. By and large, a witness cannot be expected to possess a

photographic memory and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a videotape is replayed on the
mental screen.

VII. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken
by events. The witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence, which so often has an element of surprise. The
mental faculties, therefore, cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.

VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An object
or movement might emboss its image on one person’s
mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of
another.

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
33

2026:HHC:14303

IX. By and large, people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by them
or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport
of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to

.

be a human tape recorder.

X. In regard to the exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their

estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to
make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.

of
Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals, which
varies from person to person.

XI. Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events that take place in rapid
rt
succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to
get confused or mixed up when interrogated later on.

XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing
cross-examination by counsel and, out of nervousness,

mix up facts, get confused regarding the sequence of
events, or fill in details from imagination on the spur of
the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness

sometimes operates on account of the fear of looking
foolish or being disbelieved, though the witness is giving

a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed
by him.

XIII. A former statement, though seemingly inconsistent

with the evidence, need not necessarily be sufficient to
amount to a contradiction. Unless the former statement
has the potency to discredit the latter statement, even if
the latter statement is at variance with the former to
some extent, it would not be helpful to contradict that
witness.” [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217: 1983 Cri LJ 1096: (AIR 1983 SC

753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525: AIR
1999 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR
1959 SC 1012)”

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
34

2026:HHC:14303

31. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan

Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 479: 2022

.

SCC OnLine SC 253 that the Court has to examine the evidence of the

witnesses to find out whether it has a ring of truth or not. The

Court should not give undue importance to omissions,

contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of

of
the matter. It was observed at page 60: –

“38. From the evidence of Mahender Singh, PW 4, it appears
rt
that no specific question was put to him as to whether the
appellant was present at the place of occurrence or not. This

Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rohtash Kumar v.
State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 238]
held: (SCC p. 446, para 24)
“24. … The court has to examine whether the evidence

read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more, particularly

keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and

infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether

the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to
render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not
supposed to give undue importance to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution witness.”

39. Referring to Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra [Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546], Mr
Tyagi argued that minor discrepancies caused by lapses in

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
35

2026:HHC:14303

memory were acceptable, contradictions were not. In this
case, there was no contradiction, only minor discrepancies.

40. In Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan [Kuriya v. State of
Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 202], this

.

Court held: (SCC pp. 447-48, paras 30-32)
“30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
discrepancies or improvements which do not materially

affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant
cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the
prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on

of
such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to
primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and
find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses.
Where it does not affect the core of the prosecution case,
rt
such a discrepancy should not be attached undue
significance. The normal course of human conduct would

be that while narrating a particular incident, there may
occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even,
in law, render credentials to the depositions. The
improvements or variations must essentially relate to the

material particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged
improvements and variations must be shown with
respect to the material particulars of the case and the

occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related
to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony

of a witness. The credibility of a definite circumstance of
the prosecution case cannot be weakened with reference

to such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference
in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court
in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat [Kathi Bharat
Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2 SCC
(Cri) 740], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra [Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546], Gura
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Gura Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205: 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] and
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana [Sukhchain Singh v.
State of Haryana, (2002) 5 SCC 100: 2002 SCC (Cri) 961].

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
36

2026:HHC:14303

31. What is to be seen next is whether the version
presented in the Court was substantially similar to what
was said during the investigation. It is only when
exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the

.

case that the Court has to consider whether the witness

was stating the truth or not. [Ref. Sunil Kumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003)
11 SCC 367: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055]].

32. These are variations which would not amount to any
serious consequences. The Court has to accept the normal

of
conduct of a person. The witness who is watching the
murder of a person being brutally beaten by 15 people can
hardly be expected to state a minute-by-minute
description of the event. Everybody, and more
rt
particularly a person who is known to or is related to the
deceased, would give all his attention to take steps to

prevent the assault on the victim and then to make every
effort to provide him with medical aid and inform the
police. The statements which are recorded immediately
upon the incident would have to be given a little leeway

with regard to the statements being made and recorded
with utmost exactitude. It is a settled principle of law that
every improvement or variation cannot be treated as an

attempt to falsely implicate the accused by the witness.
The approach of the court has to be reasonable and

practicable. Reference in this regard can be made to Ashok
Kumar v. State of Haryana [Ashok Kumar v. State of
Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 266] and

Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh [Shivlal v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2011) 9 SCC 561: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 777].”

41. In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. [Shyamal Ghosh v. State
of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 685], this Court
held: (SCC pp. 666-67, paras 46 & 49)
“46. Then, it was argued that there are certain
discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these witnesses have
given different timings as to when they had seen the
scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
37

2026:HHC:14303

accused. … Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or
variations are traceable in the statements of these
witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these
variations are material and affect the case of the

.

prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be

enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

***

49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should
examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and
read the said statement along with the statements of

of
other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion.
No statement of a witness can be read in part and/or in
isolation. We are unable to see any material or serious
contradiction in the statement of these witnesses which
rt
may give any advantage to the accused.”

42. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rohtash Kumar v.

State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 238],
this Court held: (SCC p. 446, para 24)
“24. … The court has to examine whether the evidence

read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more, particularly

keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and

evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether
the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to

render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not
supposed to give undue importance to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution witness.”

32. Similar is the judgment in Anuj Singh v. State of Bihar,

2022 SCC OnLine SC 497: AIR 2022 SC 2817, wherein it was observed:

“17. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
38

2026:HHC:14303

with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries
attributed on hand or foot, but the constant narrative of the
witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of
occurrence, armed with guns, and they caused the injury on

.

informant PW-6. However, the testimony of a witness in a

criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor
contradictions or omissions, as observed by this court in
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra, 2000 8 SCC 457. This Court, while considering
the issue of contradictions in the testimony while
appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, held that only

of
contradictions in material particulars and not minor
contradictions can be grounds to discredit the testimony of
the witnesses. The relevant portion of para 42 of the
rt
judgment reads as under:

“42. Only such omissions which amount to a

contradiction in material particulars can be used to
discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in
the police statement by itself would not necessarily
render the testimony of the witness unreliable. When

the version given by the witness in the court is
different in material particulars from that disclosed in
his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution

becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor
contradictions are bound to appear in the statements

of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays
false, and the sense of observation differs from person
to person. The omissions in the earlier statement, if

found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the
same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW

2. Even if there is a contradiction of a statement of a
witness on any material point, that is no ground to
reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.”

33. Therefore, in view of the binding precedents of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the statements of the witnesses cannot be

discarded due to omissions, contradictions, or discrepancies. The

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
39

2026:HHC:14303

Court must consider whether the discrepancies negatively affect

the prosecution’s case and whether they pertain to the core of the

.

case rather than the details.

34. The contradiction regarding the time is not significant

because no person remembers the time by looking at the watch,

and when anyone is asked about the time, he gives a different time,

of
which may or may not be correct. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
rt
(1983) 3 SCC 217 that people make their estimates by guesswork

regarding the time on the spur of the moment, and one cannot

expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such

matters. It was observed:-

“(5) In regard to the exact time of an incident or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their

estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to
make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.

Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals, which
varies from person to person.”

35. Therefore, the contradiction regarding the time cannot

be used to discard the prosecution’s version.

36. The contradiction regarding the presence of the driver is

more apparent than real. It is nobody’s case that Tehsildar was

driving the vehicle himself and the presence of the driver is

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
40

2026:HHC:14303

natural. Hence, there is no material contradiction in the

statements of the prosecution witnesses making their testimonies

.

doubtful.

37. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the

testimonies of Police Officers cannot be discarded because they

happened to be the Police Officers. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

of
Supreme Court in Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC

646: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 680: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 207 that the
rt
testimonies of the police officials cannot be ignored because they

are police officials. It was observed at page 656:

“21. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant that recovery has not been proved by any
independent witness is of no substance for the reason that,
in the absence of an independent witness to support the

recovery, in substance cannot be ignored unless proved to
the contrary. There is no such legal proposition that the

evidence of police officials, unless supported by an
independent witness, is unworthy of acceptance or that the
evidence of police officials can be outrightly disregarded.”

38. It was laid down by this Court in Budh Ram Versus State

of H.P. 2020 Cri.L.J.4254 that the testimonies of the police officials

cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to the police

force. It was observed:

“11. It is a settled proposition of law that the sole testimony
of the police official, which if otherwise is reliable,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
41

2026:HHC:14303

trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other
admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground
that he is a police official and may be interested in the
success of the case. There is also no rule of law, which lays

.

down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of

a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise
trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more scrutiny
of their evidence. Wherever the evidence of a police officer,

after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a
conviction, and the absence of some independent witness of

of
the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness
of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the
testimony of the police officers merely because they belong

39.
rt
to the police force.”

Similar is the judgment in Karamjit Singh versus State,

AIR 2003 S.C 3011, wherein it was held:

“The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the

same manner as the testimony of any other witness, and
there is no principle of law that without corroboration by
independent witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied

upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies,
as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons,

and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and
suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case, and no principle of

general application can be laid down.” (Emphasis supplied)

40. This position was reiterated in Sathyan v. State of Kerala,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 986, wherein it was observed:

22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police
officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In
other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of
such a police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy,
then basing the conviction thereupon cannot be questioned,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
42

2026:HHC:14303

and the same shall stand on firm ground. This Court in
Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 (6) SCC
588, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp
SCC 686: 1989 SCC (Cri) 48], State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v.

.

Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652: 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v.

State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has
laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013)
6 SCC 595: AIR 2013 SCW 3102] that there is no absolute

command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as
witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with
suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large shows their

of
disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the
testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and
trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If,
rt
in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the
evidence of the police officer as unreliable and
untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him, but it should

not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the
Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is
also based on the principle that the quality of the evidence

weighs over the quantity of evidence.

23. Referring to State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil 2001 (1)
SCC 652, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC

674, this court held that: —

“23. … That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses
have not been examined when, on the perusal of the

evidence on record, the Court finds that the case put forth
by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of
the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is
no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their
evidence.”

24. We must note that in the former it was observed: —

“21… At any rate, the court cannot start with the
presumption that the police records are untrustworthy.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the
other way around. That official acts of the police have
been regularly performed is a wise principle of

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
43

2026:HHC:14303

presumption and recognised even by the legislature… If
the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness
of such records of the police, the court could certainly
take into account the fact that no other independent

.

person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a

legally approvable procedure to presume the police action
as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action
merely for the reason that police did not collect

signatures of independent persons in the documents
made contemporaneous with such actions.”

of

25. Recently, this Court in Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of
Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine 784 had observed that the
testimonies of police witnesses, as well as pointing out
memos, do not stand vitiated due to the absence of
rt
independent witnesses.

26. It is clear from the above propositions of law, as

reproduced and referred to, that the testimonies of official
witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent
witnesses were not examined. The correctness or
authenticity is only to be doubted on “any good reason”

which, quite apparently, is missing from the present case.
No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant to
challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW – 1 and PW –

2, which the courts below have found absolutely to be

inspiring in confidence. Therefore, basing the conviction on
the basis of testimony of the police witnesses as undertaken
by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court vide the

impugned judgment, cannot be faulted with.”

41. In the present case, the official witnesses corroborated

each other. There is nothing in the statements of the official

witnesses to show that they were making false statements or that

they had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore,

the learned Trial Court had rightly relied upon the statements of

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
44

2026:HHC:14303

official witnesses to hold that the accused was found in possession

of a packet containing heroin.

.

42. It was submitted that the seal was not produced before

the Court, and this is fatal to the prosecution’s case. This

submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Varinder Kumar Versus State of H.P. 2019 (3)

of
SCALE 50 that failure to produce the seal in the court is not fatal. It

was observed: – rt
“6. We have considered the respective submissions. PW10 is

stated to have received secret information at 2.45 P.M. on
31.03.1995. He immediately reduced it into writing and sent
the same to PW8, Shri Jaipal Singh, Dy.S.P., C.I.D., Shimla. At
3.05 P.M., PW7, Head Constable Surender Kumar, stopped

PW5, Naresh Kumar and another independent witness,
Jeevan Kumar, travelling together, whereafter the appellant
was apprehended at 3.30 P.M. with two Gunny Bags on his

scooter, which contained varying quantities of ‘charas’.
PW8, Shri Jaipal Singh, Dy.S.P., C.I.D., Shimla, who had

arrived by then, gave notice to the appellant and obtained his
consent for carrying out the search. Two samples of 25 gms.

each were taken from the two Gunny Bags and sealed with
the seal ‘S’, and given to PW5. PW2, Jaswinder Singh, the
Malkhana Head Constable, resealed it with the seal ‘P’. The
conclusion of the Trial Court that the seal had not been
produced in the Court is therefore perverse in view of the two
specimen seal impressions having been marked as Exhibits
PH and PK. It is not the case of the appellant that the seals
were found tampered with in any manner.”

43. In the present case, the sample seals (Ext.P33/PW11 and

Ext.P42/PW14) were produced before the Court. The seal

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
45

2026:HHC:14303

impressions were also put on the NCB-1 Form. Therefore, the Court

had the seal impression with it to compare the seal impression on

.

the Form, and it cannot be said that the failure to produce the seal

used for sealing the case property is fatal in the present case.

44. The integrity of the case property has been duly

established. The report of the analysis (Ext.PX) mentions that one

of
sealed cloth parcel bearing six seals of seal ‘S’ and three seals of

Civil Judge Indora was brought to SFSL, Junga. The seals were
rt
found intact, and they were tallied with the specimen seals sent by

the forwarding authority. The report clearly shows that the seals

were intact when the parcel was received in the laboratory. It was

held in Baljit Sharma vs. State of H.P 2007 HLJ 707, where the report

of analysis shows that the seals were intact, and the prosecution’s

claim that the case property remained intact is to be accepted as

correct. It was observed:

“A perusal of the report of the expert Ex.PW8/A shows that
the samples were received by the expert in a safe manner,
and the sample seal separately sent and tallied with the
specimen impression of a seal taken separately. Thus, there
was no tampering with the seal, and the seal impressions
were separately taken and sent to the expert also.”

45. Similar is the judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of

Punjab 2008(8) SCC 557, wherein it was held:

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
46

2026:HHC:14303

“It has also come on evidence that to date the parcels of the
sample were received by the Chemical Examiner, the seal
put on the said parcels was intact. That itself proves and
establishes that there was no tampering with the previously

.

mentioned seal in the sample at any stage, and the sample

received by the analyst for chemical examination contained
the same opium, which was recovered from the possession
of the appellant. In that view of the matter, a delay of about

40 days in sending the samples did not and could not have
caused any prejudice to the appellant.”

of

46. In State of Punjab vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2010 (4) SCC 402,

the High Court had concluded that there could have been
rt
tampering with the case property since there was a delay of seven

days in sending the report to FSL. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that case property was produced in the Court, and

there was no evidence of tampering. Seals were found to be intact,

which would rule out the possibility of tampering. It was observed:

“The prosecution has been able to establish and prove

that the aforesaid bags, which were 35 in number, contained
poppy husk and accordingly the same were seized after
taking samples therefrom, which were properly sealed. The

defence has not been able to prove that the aforesaid seizure
and seal put in the samples were in any manner tampered
with before it was examined by the Chemical Examiner.
There was merely a delay of about seven days in sending the
samples to the Forensic Examiner, and it is not proved as to
how the aforesaid delay of seven days has affected the said
examination, when it could not be proved that the seal of the
sample was in any manner tampered with. The seal having
been found intact at the time of the examination by the
Chemical Examiner and the said fact having been recorded in
his report, a mere observation by the High Court that the

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
47

2026:HHC:14303

case property might have been tampered with, in our
opinion, is based on surmises and conjectures and cannot
take the place of proof.

17. We may at this stage refer to a decision of this Court in

.

Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 8 SCC 557 in
which there was a delay of about 40 days in sending the
sample to the laboratory after the same was seized. In the

said decision, it was held that in view of cogent and reliable
evidence that the opium was seized and sealed and that the
samples were intact till they were handed over to the

of
Chemical Examiner, the delay itself was held to be not fatal
to the prosecution’s case. In our considered opinion, the
ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of
the present case in this regard.

rt

18. The case property was produced in the Court, and there is
no evidence to show that the same was ever tampered with.”

47. Similar is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, wherein it was

held: –

10. According to learned senior counsel for the appellant,

Joginder Singh, ASI to whom Yogi Raj, SHO (PW-3), handed
over the case property for producing the same before the
Illaqa Magistrate and who returned the same to him after

such production was not examined, as such link evidence
was incomplete. In this regard, it is to be noticed that Yogi
Raj, SHO, handed over the case property to Joginder Singh,
ASI, for production before the Court. After producing the
case property before the Court, he returned the case property
to Yogi Raj, SHO (PW-3), with the seals intact. It is also to be
noticed that Joginder Singh, ASI, was not in possession of the
seals of either the investigating officer or Yogi Raj, SHO. He
produced the case property before the Court on 13.09.1996
vide application Ex.P-13, the concerned Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, after verifying the seals on the case property,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
48

2026:HHC:14303

passed the order Ex.P-14 to the effect that since there was no
judicial malkhana at Abohar, the case property was ordered
to be kept in safe custody, in Police Station Khuian Sarwar
till further orders. Since Joginder Singh, ASI, was not in

.

possession of the seals of either the SHO or the Investigating

Officer, the question of tampering with the case property by
him did not arise at all.

11. Further, he has returned the case property, after
production of the same, before the Illaqa Magistrate, with
the seals intact, to Yogi Raj, SHO. In that view of the matter,

of
the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that the
non-examination of Joginder Singh did not, in any way,
affect the case of the prosecution. Further, it is evident from
the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.P-10, that the sample
rt
was received with seals intact and that the seals on the sample
tallied with the sample seals. In that view of the matter, the

chain of evidence was complete.” (Emphasis supplied)

48. Therefore, the prosecution’s version is to be accepted as

correct that the case property remained intact till its analysis at

SFSL, Junga.

49. The report of analysis mentions that the total weight of

the exhibit with a poly packet was 6.170 grams. The weight of the

poly packet was 0.295 grams, and the actual weight of the exhibit

was 5.875 grams. Therefore, the actual weight of the heroin, i.e.,

5.875 grams, has to be considered in the present case.

50. Learned Trial Court had imposed a sentence of five

years. The Central government has notified 5 grams of heroin as a

small quantity and 250 grams of heroin as a commercial quantity,

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
49

2026:HHC:14303

which means that a person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be

sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. It was laid down by the

.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8

SCC 109: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 755 that the Courts have to apply the

principle of proportionality while imposing a sentence. It was

observed at page 113:

of

10. This Court has, time and again, stated that the principle
of proportionality should guide the sentencing process.

In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of
rt
Gujarat [Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of
Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 368 : (2009) 8

SCR 719] it was held that the sentence should “deter the
criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the)
law,” and the endeavour should be to impose an
“appropriate sentence.” The Court also held that imposing

“meagre sentences” merely on account of lapse of time would
be counterproductive. Likewise, in Jameel v. State of
U.P. [Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC

(Cri) 582 : (2009) 15 SCR 712] while advocating that
sentencing should be fact dependent exercises, the Court

also emphasised that : (Jameel case [Jameel v. State of U.P.,
(2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 582 : (2009) 15 SCR 712],

SCC p. 535, para 15)
“15. … the law should adopt the corrective machinery or
deterrence based on a factual matrix. By deft modulation, the
sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered
with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given
circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the
nature of weapons used and all other attending
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the
area of consideration.” (emphasis supplied)

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
50

2026:HHC:14303

11. Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [Guru
Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734 : (2012) 4
SCC (Civ) 594 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 972 : (2012) 8 SCR 189] the
Court stressed that : (SCC p. 744, para 33)

.

“33. … It is the duty of the court to see that an appropriate
sentence is imposed, regard being had to the commission of
the crime and its impact on the social order” (emphasis

supplied)
and that sentencing includes “adequate punishment”. In B.G.
Goswami v. Delhi Admn. [B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn., (1974)

of
3 SCC 85: 1973 SCC (Cri) 796 : (1974) 1 SCR 222], the Court
considered the issue of punishment and observed that
punishment is designed to protect society by deterring
potential offenders as well as prevent the guilty party from
rt
repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the
offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the

good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and
punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in
judicial thinking while determining the question of
awarding appropriate sentences.

12. In Sham Sunder v. Puran [Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4
SCC 731: 1991 SCC (Cri) 38: 1990 Supp (1) SCR 662], the

appellant-accused was convicted under Section 304 Part I
IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of

imprisonment already undergone, i.e. six months. However,
it enhanced the fine. This Court ruled that the sentence
awarded was inadequate. Proceeding further, it opined that:

(SCC p. 737, para 8)

8. … The court, in fixing the punishment for any particular
crime, should take into consideration the nature of the
offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and
the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The
measure of punishment should be proportionate to the
gravity of the offence. The sentence imposed by the High
Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to
involve a failure of justice. We are of the opinion that to meet
the ends of justice, the sentence has to be enhanced.”

(emphasis supplied)

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
51

2026:HHC:14303

This Court enhanced the sentence to one of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years. This Court has
emphasised, in that sentencing depends on the facts, and
the adequacy is determined by factors such as “the nature of

.

crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity

shown and the brutality reflected” [Ravada Sasikala v. State of
A.P. [Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., (2017) 4 SCC 546 : (2017)
2 SCC (Cri) 436 : (2017) 2 SCR 379] ]. Other decisions,

like: State of M.P. v. Bablu [State of M.P. v. Bablu, (2014) 9
SCC 281 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2014) 9 SCR 467]; Hazara
Singh v. Raj Kumar [Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC

of
516 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 159 : (2013) 5 SCR 979] and State of
Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi [State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi,
(2015) 5 SCC 182 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 751 : (2015) 3 SCR 590]
rt
too, have stressed on the significance and importance of
imposing appropriate, “adequate” or “proportionate”
punishments.

51. If the principle of proportionality is applied to the

present case, the sentence of five years is excessive and is required

to be reduced. Keeping in view the quantity of heroin found in

possession of the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in

default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple

imprisonment for one month. He will be entitled to set off the

imprisonment, if any, undergone during the Trial.

52. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the

sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is ordered to be

modified, and the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default

::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS
52

2026:HHC:14303

of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for

one month.

.

53. Modified jail warrants be prepared.

54. A copy of this judgment, along with the record of the

learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.

                                     of
                                                   (Rakesh Kainthla)
                    rt                                  Judge
    4th May, 2026
       (Nikita)









                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 08:20:15 :::CIS