Bali Ram Vs State

¶1

2025:HHC:12441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 2011 Reserved on: 22.3.2025 Date of Decision: 05.5.2025

¶4

Bali Ram ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent

¶5

Coram
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Judge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	*No.*
For the Appellant :	Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State :	Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶7

The present appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 17^th January 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigourous improvement for one year, pay a fine of ₹5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

2025:HHC:12441

¶11

three months for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

¶12

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Police presented a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that ASI Shiv Kumar (PW 15) received a secret information on 6^th March 2009 at about 4:30 PM that a person residing in Raghav Cottage, Sanjauli was dealing in Charas and in case of search of his house, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered. ASI Shiv Kumar entered an entry number 11 (Ex. PW-10/A), and sent it to Addl. Superintendent of Police Shri Anand Kumar Dhiman through Constable Nikku Ram (PW2). ASI Shiv Kumar, HC Ramlal (PW1), HHC Ramesh Chand (PW3), Constable Suresh Kumar (PW14), and Lady Constable Saraswati proceeded towards Raghav Cottage. They met Narayan Singh Baghania (PW4), Anuj Kuthiala (PW5), and Chaman Sharma near the children's Park at Sanjauli. The police associated them, and all of them went to Raghav Cottage. ASI Shiv Kumar prepared an intimation regarding the reasons for

¶13

3

¶14

2025:HHC:12441

¶15

not obtaining the search warrants for the house of the accused and sent it to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla, through HHC Ramesh Chand (PW3). The police found the accused present in his house. He identified himself as Bali Ram. The Police disclosed the information received by them to the accused. ASI Shiv Kumar expressed his intention to search the house of the accused. He gave his personal search and the search of the accompanying persons to the accused. Nothing incriminating was found in their possession. A memo (Ex. PW4/B) was prepared, which was signed by Chaman Sharma, Anuj Kuthiala, Narayan Singh Baghania and the accused. ASI Shivkumar, Chaman Sharma, Anuj Kuthiala and Narayan Singh went inside the house of the accused. ASI Shiv Kumar searched the house and found a polythene packet containing Charas in the form of sticks underneath the pillow on the double bed of the accused. He prepared a memo of identification (Ex. PW4/C). He weighed the Charas and found its weight to be 370 grams. He separated two samples of 20 grams, each, put the samples in two different cloth parcels, and sealed them with four impressions of seal M each. He put the remaining Charas in a separate cloth parcel, and sealed the parcel with six seal impressions of seal M. ASI Shiv

¶16

4

¶17

2025:HHC:12441

¶18

Kumar obtained sample seal M on a separate piece of cloth (Ex.P3). He filled the NCB-1 form (Ex. PW-7/D) in triplicate and put the seal impression on the form. ASI Shiv Kumar handed over the seal to witness Narayan Singh after the use and prepared a memo (Ex. PW4/D) regarding handing over the seal. He seized the Charas vide seizure memo (Ex. PW4/A). He prepared a rukka (Ex. PW7/A) and sent it to the police station, where an FIR (Ex.PW-7/B) was registered. ASI Shiv Kumar conducted the investigation. He prepared the spot map (Ex. PW4/F) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused and prepared a memo of arrest (Ex.PW-4/E). He produced the accused and the case property before Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW7), who resealed the parcels with seal T. He obtained the specimen seal impression on a separate piece of cloth (Ex. P4) and handed over the case property, sample seal, and documents to HC Shiv Kumar (PW8). HC Shiv Kumar made an entry in the Malkhana register at Serial Number 16 (Ex.PW8/A). He handed over the sample parcel, NCB-1 form in triplicate, seizure memo, copy of FIR, and sample seal to Rattan Lal (PW-9) with the direction to carry them to FSL Junga vide RC No. 49/2009 (Ex. PW8/B). HC Rattan Lal deposited all the articles

¶19

5

¶20

2025:HHC:12441

¶21

at FSL Junga and handed over the receipt to HC Shiv Kumar on his return. SI Shiv Kumar prepared a special report (Ex. PW-10/B) and handed it over to HHC Ramesh Chand with a direction to take it to Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Anand Kumar Dhiman. HHC Ramesh Chand handed over the special report to the Additional Superintendent of Police. Additional Superintendent of Police made his endorsement on the special report and handed it over to his Reader, HC Hemendra Singh. A result of chemical analysis (Ex. PW15/G) was issued, in which it was mentioned that the entire mass of the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of Charas. The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was prepared and filed before the Court.

¶22

The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶23

The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. HC Ram Lal (PW1) and Constable Suresh Kumar (PW14) are the official witnesses to the recovery. Narayan Singh (PW4) and

¶24

6

¶25

2025:HHC:12441

¶26

Anuj Kuthiala (PW5) are the independent witnesses to the recovery who did not support the prosecution's case. Constable Nikku Ram (PW 2) and HHC Ramesh Chand (PW3) carried the information to the Additional Superintendent of Police. Babu Ram (PW6) is the owner of the house. SI Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW7) signed the FIR and resealed the case property. HC Shiv Kumar (PW8) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Constable Rattan Lal (PW9) carried the case property to FSL Junga. Head constable Haminder Singh (PW10) was working as a Reader to the Additional Superintendent of Police to whom the information and special report were handed over. Inspector Kundan Singh (PW 11) prepared the challan. Ganga Ram (PW 12) provided the details of the tenants residing in the building. Constable Puran Chand (PW13) proved the entries in the daily diary. Head Constable, Kuldeep Kumar (PW 17, wrongly mentioned), was working as an MHC who sent the remaining parcels to FSL Junga. Lady Constable Promila Devi (PW 18 wrongly mentioned) carried the remaining parcels to FSL Junga.

¶27

The accused, in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC, denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He stated that he was arrested by the police without any basis. He

¶28

7

¶29

2025:HHC:12441

¶30

was innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He did not lead any defence evidence.

¶31

The learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of police officials corroborated each other. There was nothing in their cross-examination to show that they were making false statements. The mere fact that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case was not sufficient to discard the prosecution’s case. The accused was proved to be in possession of the house from where the recovery was made. The substance was sent to FSL Junga, where it was found to be charas. The integrity of the case property was proved. Hence, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. There were major contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials. Police witnesses stated that the independent witnesses met them near Children's Park, Sanjauli, whereas the independent witnesses stated that they were called to the spot. Even the description of the building was mentioned differently. No independent witness from the locality

¶33

8

¶34

2025:HHC:12441

¶35

was associated, which made the whole prosecution case suspect. The entire investigation was conducted in the police station. The police officials remained outside the room from which the recovery was made, and they could not have been witnesses to the actual recovery. The seal was not produced before the court. No document showing that the accused was the tenant in the building was produced. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶36

I have heard Mr Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶37

Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. There were major contradictions in the testimonies of police officials. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The integrity of the case property was not established. There was non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶38

9

¶39

2025:HHC:12441

¶40

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that there is no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. It was rightly held that all the witnesses could not have entered the room. The official witnesses were standing outside and could have witnessed the recovery of the charas from outside the room. The fact that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case is not sufficient to discard it. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶41

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶42

Narayan Singh (PW4) did not support the prosecution's case. He was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied in his crossexamination that ASI Shiv Kumar approached him near the Children's Park, Sanjauli. He denied that his search and search of Shiv Kumar, Anuj and Chaman Sharma was conducted outside the room. He denied that he, ASI Shiva Kumar and Anuj Kuthiala entered the room. He denied that SI Shiv Kumar searched the room and recovered a polythene packet containing the black substance. He denied that ASI Shiv Kumar identified the

¶43

10

¶44

2025:HHC:12441

¶45

substance as Charas. He denied that the weight of charas was found to be 370 grams. He denied the previous statement recorded by the police.

¶46

It is apparent from his examination that he has not supported the prosecution's case, and no advantage can be derived from his testimony by the prosecution.

¶47

Anuj Kuthiala (PW5) also did not support the prosecution's case. He was also permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied in his crossexamination that ASI Shiv Kumar associated him, Narayan Singh and Chaman Sharma with a raiding party. He denied that all of them went to the room of the accused, where the accused was present. He denied that Shiv Kumar searched the room of the accused and found a polythene packet containing charas in it. He denied that the weight of the charas was formed to be 370 grams. He denied that samples were taken out on the spot. He denied his previous statement recorded by the police.

¶48

This witness has also not supported the prosecution's case, and the prosecution cannot derive any advantage from his testimony.

¶49

11

¶50

2025:HHC:12441

¶51

The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the mere fact that independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution's case was not sufficient to discard it. However, the testimonies of police officials are to be seen with due care and caution in these circumstances.

¶52

It was specifically mentioned in the rukka that only ASI Shiv Kumar and independent witnesses had gone inside the room. HC Ram Lal and Constable Suresh Kumar specifically stated in their examination- in- chief that they remained outside the room. Therefore, they cannot be the witness to the actual recovery stated to have been made inside the room. HC Ram Lal (PW1) stated in his cross-examination that he did not enter the room, and he could not tell about the goods and articles kept by the accused inside the room or the spot from where the Charas was found during the search. ASI Shiv Kumar disclosed that charas was found beneath the pillow of the bed of accused. Similarly, Constable Suresh Kumar (PW 14) stated in his crossexamination that he did not enter the room and could not tell about the goods and articles kept by the accused inside the room. He volunteered to say that he was watching the proceedings from outside. This part of his testimony that he was watching the

¶53

12

¶54

2025:HHC:12441

¶55

proceedings from outside is not supported by any person and cannot be relied upon.

¶56

The learned Trial Court held that the size of the room was not big enough to accommodate all the officials. Hence, the fact that the police official remained outside the room will not be sufficient to cast doubt upon the prosecution's case. This finding is without any basis. No person has deposed that the size of the room was small and that all the police officials could not enter it. ASI Shiv Kumar opted to keep the police officials outside the room, and the prosecution cannot take advantage of their testimonies when the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case.

¶57

Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the police officials cannot be doubted. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law. However, in the present case, the police officials never witnessed the search and recovery. Therefore, their testimonies cannot be used to conclude that any recovery was made from the room of the accused.

¶58

Therefore, the prosecution is left with the testimony of ASI Shiv Kumar to prove its case. His testimony is to be seen

¶59

13

¶60

2025:HHC:12441

¶61

with due care and caution, considering that two independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.

¶62

ASI Shiv Kumar (PW 15) stated that he received the information and reduced it to writing (Ex.PW10/A). A copy of this information was sent to Additional Superintendent of Police through Constable Nikku Ram (PW2). When he reached the spot, he prepared an intimation regarding the reason for not obtaining the search warrant for the room of the accused, which was sent through HHC Ramesh Chand to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla. His testimony shows that he had prepared two informations-one before proceeding to the spot and one at the spot. However, the prosecution has only proved one written document (Ex. PW-10/A). HHC Ramesh Chand stated that he had carried one piece of information to the Additional Superintendent of Police from the spot, which was returned to him on the ground that the Additional Superintendent of Police had already received the information through Constable Nikku Ram. He returned both copies of the information to ASI Shiv Kumar. Therefore, the information was with ASI Shiv Kumar, and he has not assigned any reason for not producing it on record. Additional Superintendent of Police was also not examined to prove that

¶63

14

¶64

2025:HHC:12441

¶65

HHC Ramesh Chand had carried any information to him, which he had declined to receive. His Reader, Head Constable Haminder Singh (PW10), did not say anything about the receipt of information through HHC Ramesh Chand. He only deposed that information was received through Constable Nikku Ram, and HHC Ramesh Chand had brought a special report on 7^th March 2009. Ram Lal (PW1) who was stated to be present with the police party has also not stated that any grounds were written before entering the house or they were sent through HHC Ramesh Chand. Hence, the testimony of ASI Shiv Kumar regarding sending the information from the spot through HHC Ramesh Chand has not been corroborated.

¶66

Ram Lal (PW1) stated in his cross-examination that the accused was occupying three room set. Babu Ram (PW6), the houseowner, admitted after he was permitted to be crossexamined that he had rented out a single room set to the accused. Thus, the identity of the house where the accused was stated to be residing has also not been established.

¶67

Constable Nikku Ram (PW2) stated that the information handed over to him was not put in any envelope

¶68

15

¶69

2025:HHC:12441

¶70

whereas ASI Shiv Kumar (PW15) stated that the information was handed over to Constable Nikku Ram in an envelope.

¶71

HHC Ramesh (PW3) stated in his cross-examination that he met ASI Shiv Kumar in the police post Sanjauli, whereas ASI Shiv Kumar (PW15) stated that HHC Ramesh was with him when he reached police post Sanjauli at 8:45 pm.

¶72

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1577: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 756 that the evidence of the prosecution must be tested for its inherent consistency: consistency with the account of other witnesses and consistency with undisputed facts. It was observed:

¶73

“21. …. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eyewitnesses' accounts would require a careful, independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged, making any other evidence, including the medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the “credit” of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation, etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.”

¶74

16

¶75

2025:HHC:12441

¶76

It was held in David Piper vs Mark Hales 2013 EWHC B1

¶77

(QB) that the Court has to see whether the statement of the witness is consistent or not. It was observed: -

¶78

The guidance about how courts approach this is given in the extra-judicial writing of the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill, approved by the courts, is apposite. In "The Judge as Juror: The Judicial Determination of Factual Issues ", published in " The Business of Judging ", Oxford 2000, reprinted from Current Legal Problems, vol 38, 1985, p 1-27 , he wrote:

¶79

". . . Faced with a conflict of evidence on an issue substantially affecting the outcome of an action, often knowing that a decision this way or that will have momentous consequences on the parties' lives or fortunes, how can and should the judge set about his task of resolving it? How is he to resolve which witness is honest and which dishonest, which reliable and which unreliable?

¶80

The normal first step in resolving issues of primary fact is, I feel sure, to add to what is common ground between the parties (which the pleadings in the action should have identified but often do not) such facts as are shown to be incontrovertible. In many cases, letters or minutes written well before there was any breath of dispute between the parties may throw a very clear light on their knowledge and intentions at a particular time. In other cases, evidence of tyre marks, debris or where vehicles ended up may be crucial. To attach importance to matters such as these, which are independent of human recollection, is so obvious and standard a practice, and in some cases so inevitable, that no prolonged discussion is called for. It is nonetheless worth bearing in mind, when vexatious conflicts of oral testimony arise, that these fall to be judged against the background not only of what the parties agree to have happened but also of what plainly did happen, even though the parties do not agree.

¶81

The most compendious statement known to me of the judicial process involved in assessing the credibility of

¶82

17

¶83

2025:HHC:12441

¶84

an oral witness is to be found in the dissenting speech of Lord Pearce in the House of Lords in Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 403 at p 431. In this, he touches on so many of the matters which I wish to mention that I may perhaps be forgiven for citing the relevant passage in full:

¶85

''Credibility' involves wider problems than mere 'demeanour', which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. Credibility covers the following problems. First, is the witness a truthful or untruthful person? Secondly, is he, though a truthful person, telling something less than the truth on this issue, or though an untruthful person, telling the truth on this issue? Thirdly, though he is a truthful person telling the truth as he sees it, did he register the intentions of the conversation correctly and if so, has his memory correctly retained them? Also, has his recollection been subsequently altered by unconscious bias or wishful thinking or by too much discussion of it with others? Witnesses, especially those who are emotional and who think that they are morally in the right, tend very easily and unconsciously to conjure up a legal right that did not exist. It is a truism, often used in accident cases, that with every day that passes, the memory becomes fainter, and the imagination becomes more active. For that reason, a witness, however honest, rarely persuades a Judge that his present recollection is preferable to that which was taken down in writing immediately after the accident occurred. Therefore, contemporary documents are always of the utmost importance. And lastly, although the honest witness believes he heard or saw this or that, is it so improbable that it is on balance more likely that he was mistaken? On this point, it is essential that the balance of probability is put correctly into the scales in weighing the credibility of a witness. And the motive is one

¶86

18

¶87

2025:HHC:12441

¶88

aspect of probability. All these problems compendiously are entailed when a Judge assesses the credibility of a witness; they are all part of one judicial process. And in the process, contemporary documents and admitted or incontrovertible facts and probabilities must play their proper part."

¶89

Every judge is familiar with cases in which the conflict between the accounts of different witnesses is so gross as to be inexplicable save on the basis that one or some of the witnesses are deliberately giving evidence which they know to be untrue . . .. more often dishonest evidence is likely to be prompted by the hope of gain, the desire to avert blame or criticism, or misplaced loyalty to one or other of the parties. The main tests needed to determine whether a witness is lying or not are, I think, the following, although their relative importance will vary widely from case to case:

¶90

(1) the consistency of the witness's evidence with what is agreed, or clearly shown by other evidence, to have occurred;

¶91

(2) the internal consistency of the witness's evidence;

¶92

(3) consistency with what the witness has said or deposed on other occasions;

¶93

(4) the credit of the witness in relation to matters not germane to the litigation;

¶94

(5) the demeanour of the witness.

¶95

The first three of these tests may, in general, be regarded as giving a useful pointer to where the truth lies. If a witness's evidence conflicts with what is clearly shown to have occurred or is internally selfcontradictory, or conflicts with what the witness has previously said, it may usually be regarded as suspect. It may only be unreliable and not dishonest, but the nature of the case may effectively rule out that possibility.

¶96

The fourth test is perhaps more arguable. . . ."

¶97

19

¶98

2025:HHC:12441

¶99

The following guidance of Lord Goff in Grace Shipping v. Sharp & Co [1987] 1 Lloyd's Law Rep. 207 at 215-6 is also helpful.

¶100

"And it is not to be forgotten that, in the present case, the Judge was faced with the task of assessing the evidence of witnesses about telephone conversations which had taken place over five years before. In such a case, memories may very well be unreliable, and it is of crucial importance for the Judge to have regard to the contemporary documents and the overall probabilities. In this connection, their Lordships wish to endorse a passage from a judgment of one of their number in Armagas Ltd v. Mundogas S.A. (The Ocean Frost), [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 , when he said at p. 57: -

¶101

"Speaking from my own experience, I have found it essential in cases of fraud, when considering the credibility of witnesses, always to test their veracity by reference to the objective facts proved independently of their testimony, in particular by reference to the documents in the case, and also to pay particular regard to their motives and the overall probabilities. It is frequently very difficult to tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not, and where there is a conflict of evidence, such as there was in the present case, reference to the objective facts and documents, to the witnesses' motives , and the overall probabilities, can be of very great assistance to a Judge in ascertaining the truth." [emphases added].

¶102

That observation is, in their Lordships' opinion, equally apposite in a case where the evidence of the witnesses is likely to be unreliable, and it is to be remembered that in commercial cases, such as the present, there is usually a substantial body of contemporary documentary evidence."

¶103

In that context, he was impressed by a witness described in the following terms.

¶104

"Although, like the other main witnesses, his evidence was a mixture of reconstruction and original recollection, he took considerable trouble to distinguish precisely between the two, to an extent which I found convincing and reliable."

¶105

20

¶106

2025:HHC:12441

¶107

That is so important and so infrequently done."

¶108

This approach to fact-finding was amplified recently by Lady Justice Arden in the Court of Appeal in Wetton (as Liquidator of Mumtaz Properties) v. Ahmed and others [2011] EWCA Civ 610 , in paragraphs 11, 12 & 14:

¶109

By the end of the judgment, it is clear that what impressed the judge most in his task of fact-finding was the absence, rather than the presence, of contemporary documentation or other independent oral evidence to confirm the oral evidence of the respondents to the proceedings.

¶110

There are many situations in which the court is asked to assess the credibility of witnesses from their oral evidence, that is to say, to weigh up their evidence to see whether it is reliable. Witness choice is an essential part of the function of a trial judge, and he or she has to decide whose evidence and how much evidence to accept. This task is not to be carried out merely by reference to the impression that a witness made by giving evidence in the witness box. It is not solely a matter of body language or the tone of voice or other factors that might generally be called the 'demeanour' of a witness. The judge should consider what other independent evidence would be available to support the witness. Such evidence would generally be documentary, but it could be other oral evidence, for example, if the issue was whether a defendant was an employee, the judge would naturally consider whether there were any PAYE records or evidence, such as evidence in texts or e-mails, in which the defendant seeks or is given instructions as to how he should carry out work. This may be particularly important in cases where the witness is from a culture or way of life with which the judge may not be familiar. These situations can present particular dangers and difficulties to a judge.

¶111

In my judgment, contemporaneous written documentation is of the very greatest importance in assessing credibility. Moreover, it can be significant not only where it is present, and the oral evidence can

¶112

21

¶113

2025:HHC:12441

¶114

then be checked against it. It can also be significant if written documentation is absent. For instance, if the judge is satisfied that certain contemporaneous documentation is likely to have existed were the oral evidence correct and that the party adducing oral evidence is responsible for its non-production, then the documentation may be conspicuous by its absence, and the judge may be able to draw inferences from its absence.

¶115

Contemporaneity, consistency, probability and motive are key criteria and more important than demeanour, which can be distorted through the prism of prejudice: how witnesses present themselves in a cramped witness box surrounded for the first time with multiple files can be distorted, particularly elderly ones being asked to remember minute details of what happened and what was said, and unrecorded, nearly 4 years later as here. Lengthy witness statements prepared by the parties' lawyers long after the events also distort the accurate picture, even though they are meant to assist the court.”

¶116

In the present case, the testimony of ASI Shiv Kumar does not pass the test of consistency, and it is difficult to rely upon his testimony, especially when independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case, and the other police officials never entered the room.

¶117

Hence, the evidence by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the prosecution's case that the accused was found in possession of a polythene packet containing charas. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, which is extended to

¶118

22

¶119

2025:HHC:12441

¶120

him, and it is held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶121

Once it is held that the prosecution's case regarding the recovery is not satisfactory, the subsequent steps like depositing of the case property with the MHC or sending it to the FSL, for analysis will not help the prosecution because the case property analysed in the laboratory cannot be connected to the accused.

¶122

In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, which is extended to him. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are ordered to be set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the charged offence. The fine, if deposited be refunded to the accused after the expiry of the period of limitation, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶123

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/accused is

¶124

23

¶125

2025:HHC:12441

¶126

directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶127

A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶128

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶129

5^th May, 2025 (Chander)

Bali Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bali Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Chauhan Vs Sanjay Kumar

Dile Ram Vs Kangra Central Cooperative Bank

Nand Ram Vs State of Hp

Asif Saifi Vs State of Hp

Uchechukwau Emmanuel Vs State of Hp

Anuj Kumar Vs State of Hp