Court Holds Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements Cannot Overturn Conviction When Recovery and Link Evidence Establish Conscious Possession
Shimla: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a criminal appeal filed against conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), holding that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of commercial quantity of Charas from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused.
A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhupesh Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by Krishan Chand @ Thithi against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba.
The judgment was delivered on 08 October 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2021, Krishan Chand @ Thithi vs State of Himachal Pradesh. The matter arose from conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The High Court upheld the sentence of:
- Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years; and
- Fine of ₹1 lakh, with further simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2019 (NDPS Act) titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs Krishan Chand @ Thithi. The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 08.03.2021. The order of sentence was passed on 09.03.2021, whereby the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
The benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also granted to the accused. The prosecution case originated from FIR No. 33 of 2019 dated 26.01.2019, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.
Prosecution Allegation: Recovery of 1.555 Kg Charas
According to the prosecution, on 26.01.2019 at about 3:00 PM, a police team of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), Chamba, was carrying out routine patrolling, traffic checking and crime detection duties. The police party was headed by HC Vikky Raj No.77. While the police officials were present at Behi near Koti on Chamba-Tissa Road, they noticed the accused approaching from the Koti side while carrying a backpack (pithu bag). The prosecution alleged that the accused became frightened on seeing the police party, following which he was stopped and questioned.
After completing necessary formalities, the backpack carried by the accused was searched in the presence of witnesses. During the search, the police allegedly recovered:
1.555 kilograms of Charas (Cannabis) from the backpack. The accused failed to account for possession of the contraband.
Search, Seizure and Investigation Proceedings
The prosecution case further stated that after recovery:
- The recovered Charas was sealed in a cloth parcel;
- Six seals bearing impression “A” were affixed;
- Sample seal impression was prepared;
- NCB-I forms were filled in triplicate;
- The case property was taken into possession through recovery and seizure memo.
The seal, after use, was handed over to Constable Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, rukka was prepared and sent for registration of FIR. The case was registered as FIR No. 33/2019 dated 26.01.2019 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Chamba.
Further Investigation and Compliance Under NDPS Act
During investigation, HC Chaman Lal took over further proceedings. The case property was produced before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Chamba, for re-sealing under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The case property was re-sealed by affixing six seals bearing impression “SB”. The prosecution also prepared necessary documents and deposited the case property for safe custody. A Special Report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the supervisory officer. The recovered substance was later sent for forensic examination.
The State Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that the substance was Charas (Cannabis), with purified resin quantity found to be 27.05% w/w.
Trial Court Conviction
After completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Special Judge, Chamba. The accused was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Important witnesses included:
- Constable Sunil Kumar (PW-6);
- Independent witness Vinod Kumar (PW-7);
- Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW-11);
- Constable Mukesh Kumar (PW-12);
- Investigating Officer HC Vikky Raj (PW-15).
The prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence including seizure documents, NCB forms, photographs, FSL report and other investigation records. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and claimed false implication. After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for possession of 1.555 kg Charas and sentenced him accordingly.
Grounds Raised Before High Court
The accused challenged the conviction on several grounds. The main submissions were:
- The judgment was contrary to law and facts;
- The prosecution evidence contained contradictions;
- The recovery was doubtful;
- Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with;
- Independent witnesses were not properly associated;
- The investigation was unfair and prejudicial.
The appellant also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction deserved to be set aside.
High Court Examines Evidence of Recovery
The High Court examined the evidence led by the prosecution. The Court noted that the case was based upon recovery of Charas from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. The Court observed that the accused was apprehended during routine patrolling and that the recovery was made from the backpack carried by him. The Court specifically considered the statements of:
- PW-6 Constable Sunil Kumar;
- PW-7 Vinod Kumar;
- PW-11 Constable Sanjay Kumar;
- PW-12 Constable Mukesh Kumar; and
- PW-15 HC Vikky Raj.
The Court found that these witnesses supported the prosecution version regarding recovery and seizure proceedings.
Non-Association of Multiple Independent Witnesses Not Fatal
One of the major arguments raised by the appellant was that the police did not associate sufficient independent witnesses during the search and seizure proceedings. The High Court rejected this argument. The Court noted that the police party was conducting routine patrolling and there was no prior information regarding movement of the accused with contraband.
The investigating officer had associated Vinod Kumar, who was an independent witness and supported the prosecution case. The Court held that merely because more independent witnesses were not associated, the prosecution case could not be discarded. However, the Court clarified that evidence of police officials must be carefully scrutinised.
Minor Contradictions Cannot Discredit Entire Prosecution Case
The appellant argued that there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The High Court examined this issue and held that every discrepancy in evidence does not affect the credibility of witnesses. The Court relied upon the settled principle that minor variations or inconsistencies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case cannot become a ground for acquittal. The evidence of witnesses has to be examined as a whole. The Court observed that witnesses cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of an incident with photographic accuracy. Only contradictions which materially affect the prosecution case can create doubt.
Court Finds Link Evidence Complete
The High Court further examined the chain of custody and procedural compliance. The Court found that:
- The case property was properly sealed;
- Re-sealing proceedings were conducted;
- Necessary reports were prepared;
- Compliance under Section 57 NDPS Act was established;
- Section 52A NDPS Act requirements were fulfilled.
The Court also relied upon the forensic report confirming the substance as Charas.
High Court Upholds Conviction and Sentence
After considering the entire material on record, the High Court held that the view taken by the Trial Court was correct. The Court found that the evidence produced by the prosecution was properly appreciated and that there was no ground to interfere with the conviction. The judgment of conviction dated 08.03.2021 and order of sentence dated 09.03.2021 were upheld. Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The judgment reiterates important principles relating to NDPS prosecutions:
1. Conscious Possession is Essential
For conviction under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must establish possession of contraband and the circumstances indicating conscious possession. In the present case, the Court found that the Charas was recovered from the backpack carried by the accused.
2. Independent Witness Requirement
The judgment reiterates that non-association of multiple independent witnesses is not automatically fatal to the prosecution case. Where circumstances explain absence of additional witnesses and available independent evidence supports recovery, conviction can be sustained.
3. Minor Contradictions Do Not Destroy Credibility
Courts must distinguish between material contradictions affecting the foundation of prosecution and minor discrepancies arising due to lapse of time or human memory.
4. Compliance with NDPS Procedure
Proper sealing, documentation, forensic examination and statutory compliance play an important role in sustaining conviction.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Krishan Chand @ Thithi vs State of Himachal Pradesh reinforces the principle that a conviction under the NDPS Act can be sustained when the prosecution establishes recovery of contraband from the accused’s conscious and exclusive possession through reliable evidence. The Court found that the recovery of 1.555 kg Charas, supported by the testimony of police officials, an independent witness, documentary evidence and forensic examination, established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Rejecting arguments relating to minor contradictions and non-association of additional independent witnesses, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of ₹1 lakh.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Judgments | Criminal Law Updates