IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No.689 of 2002. Date of Decision:11.10.2011. _______________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus: Subhash Chand son of Sh. Bansi Lal resident of village Matheri Post office Nawani Devi Tehsil and P.S. Sarkaghat District Mandi, H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: :Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondent: :Mr.Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan acquitting the accused for offences under Sections 20, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The prosecution case in brief is that on 6th March, 2001 at around 8 A.M. when PW3 Ranjit Singh along with SHO PW7 Vijay Kumar, were on patrolling duty, they received secret information Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.yes. 2 that the accused used to sell charas from his Rehari (Pushcart) at Vardhman Chowk, Baddi. This report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Solan. Raiding party was organized and they accordingly seized the contraband from the accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. We advert to their evidence. PW1 Amrik Singh says that in the month of March, 2001, he came to the Police Station at around 2.30 p.m. and no proceedings were conducted in his presence. He was asked to sign memo Ext.PW1/A which is the consent memo of the accused. Ext.PW1/D which was the form of ‘Jamatalasi’, (personal search) Ext.PW1/H was the information of arrest of the accused and Ext.PW1/G which is a inventory list. He was declared hostile, confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which he denied having made. He along with PW2 Hardev Singh who having been associated as a member of the raiding party at Vardhman chowk, also denied that respondent- Subhash Chand was arrested there or any proceedings were conducted in his presence. This is the consistency in his statement. PW2 Hardev Singh denied being associated with the proceedings at all. He was declared hostile. PW3 Ranjit Singh who is posted in the Police Station, Baddi stated that the raiding party which consisted of PW1 Amrik Singh and PW2 Hardev Singh had, in fact, seized the contraband which was later on discovered to be charas. PW4 Constable Rakesh Kumar also affirms both these witnesses as having been associated with the raiding party. PW7 Vijay Kumar, Inspector/SHO, Nalagarh also says that both these witnesses were associated with the raiding party. The prosecution case, of course, is 3 that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that the accused was apprehended with the contraband. The learned trial Court, on a detailed examination of the evidence acquitted the accused primarily holding that from the two views possible, there is no explanation as to why both these independent witnesses have turned hostile. We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The submission made on behalf of the State that the version of the police cannot be rejected if there is consistency in the evidence, is an established proposition. It does not require any reiteration. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 and Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217. There is no doubt about this proposition which is established but the law has to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case. What we find from the evidence of the two independent witnesses who were a part of the raiding party is that they have denied participation in the proceedings completely. PW1 Amrik Singh says that the police got his signatures on the memo (Ext.PW1/A) in the police station while PW2 Hardev Singh says that no proceeding were conducted in his presence. We have considered the evidence of the prosecution in detail and have been unable to find anything in their searching cross- examination to establish on the record that what they state is not the truth. There is no material on the record to show or establish that these two witnesses had been won over by the accused or that they 4 had any parochial affinity to hide the truth. We do not find any reason to disbelieve their testimony and in that event, we find that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is inconsonance with law. Of course, it would have been a different matter altogether in case it had been established that there was some motive/affinity of these two witnesses to support the accused. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (R.B.Misra), Judge. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 11,2011 (R)