Prakash Chand Vs State of Hp

¶1

Prakash Chand Vs. State of H.P.

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2024

¶3

15.10.2025 Present:

¶4

Mr. Jagat Paul, Advocate, for the appellant/ applicant.

¶5

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.

¶6

Cr.MP No. 4553 of 2025

¶7

This application has been filed by applicant-

¶8

Prakash Chand for suspension of sentence on the grounds that there is fair chance of acquittal of the applicant as evident even on cursory perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act and therefore, the trial has vitiated. We do not find favour to suspend the sentence of the applicant on this ground as in present case the entire bulk of contraband was sent for chemical examination to the State FSL and therefore, noncompliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act is not fatal to the prosecution or of any help to the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though State, in evidence, has produced various GD entries downloaded from the computer of the Police Station, Sunder Nagar, but none of the entry is supported by requisite certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act, 2023). Further, PW-12 (Jaswant Singh), examined as an

¶11

independent witness, has not supported the prosecution case as he has completely denied his presence on the spot in contrast to the prosecution story with further statement that he had put signature on the documents only at the instance of the police.

¶12

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that even if statement of PW-12 Jaswant Singh is not taken into consideration at this stage, then also statement of PW-10 H.C. Tek Chand demolishes the entire prosecution story with respect to recovery of contraband as claimed in the prosecution case because PW-10 H.C. Tek Chand was one of the Police Officials, who were allegedly accompanying the police party from the very beginning as evident from Exhibits PW4/A and PW4/B, but in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination, he had not uttered even a single word about his presence on the spot and regarding the recovery of contraband as alleged to have taken in presence of police party including him.

¶13

Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that despite lapse on the part of PW-10 H.C. Tek Chand in deposing the facts with respect to the spot occurrence where the alleged contraband was recovered from the accused person, there is statement of PW-11 and

¶14

PW-13 (police officials and investigating officers) duly establishing the story of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

¶15

PW-10 H.C. Tek Chand is not layman but is a police official, who is a Head Constable, vested with power to investigate the cases and he has also stated that he had also conducted partial investigation in present matter. Therefore, lapse on his part in deposition is not ignorable rather it cast doubt about the entire story of the prosecution.

¶16

Plea for suspension of sentence on the ground that independent witness has turned hostile, may not be a valid sole ground for suspension of sentence, however, for deposition of PW10 H.C. Tek Chand, learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, has been able to make out a ground for suspension of sentence by creating doubt about prosecution story. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the entire evidence, but considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, substantial sentence imposed upon the applicant deserves to be suspended as the final hearing in the appeal may take place after a considerable long time because present appeal belongs to the year 2024 and we have roster of final hearing with respect to the appeals upto the year 2022.

¶17

In view of above, substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant is suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, undertaking therein to appear before the Court as and when directed to do so and also to surrender in case of dismissal of the appeal. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to this Court for placing on record.

¶18

The aforesaid observations made in this application, shall not have any impact on the final adjudication of the appeal as these observations are preliminary in nature by considering the material on record, prima facie, for purpose of suspension of sentence of the applicant.

¶19

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of certified copy of order, rather Trial Court shall verify passing of this order from the Web-page of the High Court. Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶20

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶21

October 15, 2025 ( Nisha)

¶22

( Romesh Verma) Judge

Prakash Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Minhas Vs the State of Hp and Others

Seema Devi Vs Rakesh Kumar

Sheela Devi and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs Rajneesh and Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Rajesh Kumar Alias Gullabu