Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that while the conviction of the accused for possession of contraband under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 stood established, the sentence imposed by the trial court required modification. The court directed that the accused shall undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and pay a fine of ₹10,000, and in default of payment, further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Subject to this modification, the judgment of the trial court was upheld.

The case originated from an incident on 26 September 2018 when a police party comprising HC Chander Mohan, HC Maan Singh, Constable Kapil, and Constable Arun, while on patrol duty near Housing Board Colony, found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10B-1679 parked at a secluded location with its internal lights switched on. Upon inquiry, the person inside identified himself as Digvijay Singh. When asked to produce vehicle documents, he failed to provide them. During a search of the dashboard, the police recovered a spherical substance wrapped in khaki tape, later identified as heroin. The substance weighed 23 grams. Attempts to bring in independent witnesses failed, and the police associated official witnesses instead. The contraband was seized, sealed, and documented according to procedure.

Also Read: Pre-Independence Records Hold Greater Probative Value | Supreme Court Says Affinity Test Alone Cannot Defeat Claim, Quashes Orders And Directs Koli Mahadev Tribe Validity Certificate

The case property was resealed by the Station House Officer and subsequently deposited in the malkhana. It was later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, which confirmed the substance as diacetylmorphine (heroin). Special reports were duly prepared and forwarded to superior officers. Following investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted Digvijay Singh under Section 21, sentencing him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000, while acquitting co-accused Vipul.

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent, that the site plan was inaccurate, that independent witnesses were not associated despite availability, and that the integrity of the case property was compromised. He claimed false implication due to altercation with police. The defence presented witnesses, including Vikender Kumar, who claimed Digvijay and another person were forcibly taken by police from ISBT Shimla, but the trial court rejected this testimony.

Prosecution witnesses, including police officials and scientific experts, were examined. The trial court held that their testimonies corroborated each other on material particulars. The trial court found no merit in the defence plea and established the chain of custody of the contraband. On appeal, arguments centered on contradictions in official witness statements, non-association of independent witnesses, non-production of seal, alleged falsification of documents, and disproportionality of sentence.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla recorded that the testimony of the defence witness was not reliable as the accused had not claimed in his Section 313 statement that he was picked up from ISBT. The Court noted: “This version was propounded by Vikender Singh for the first time and was an afterthought.” The judge observed that the conduct of the defence witness did not reflect normal human behavior: “He boarded the bus and went to Rohru as if nothing had happened. This is not normal human conduct and would make it difficult to rely upon his testimony.”

On the issue of contradictions in police testimony, the Court observed: “The contradictions were bound to come due to failure of memory with the passage of time, and mere contradictions are not sufficient to make the prosecution’s case doubtful.” Referring to Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), it was noted that minor discrepancies do not invalidate credible testimony.

On the absence of independent witnesses, the Court stated: “The non-association of independent witnesses is not fatal, and the prosecution's case cannot be discarded due to the non-association of independent witnesses. However, the Court will have to carefully scrutinise the testimonies of the police officials.” Citing Supreme Court precedents, it was held that official witnesses’ testimony carries equal evidentiary value.

Regarding the non-production of the seal, the Court observed: “Non-production of the seals before the learned Trial Court is not material and cannot be used to discard the prosecution’s case.” It held that specimen seal impressions available on record were sufficient.

On the issue of compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the Court stated: “The provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not mandatory and its non-compliance is not fatal to the prosecution case.”

The integrity of the case property was upheld based on the forensic report, which confirmed that the seals were intact: “This report establishes the integrity of the case property.”

With respect to sentencing, the Court recorded: “Applying the principle of proportionality, the sentence of four years cannot be justified.” It was observed that since possession was of 23 grams of heroin, which is significantly less than the notified commercial quantity of 250 grams, a lesser sentence was appropriate. The Court applied Supreme Court guidance in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana (2023) 8 SCC 109.

Also Read: Delhi HC Upholds NDMC Blacklist | Forged Bid Documents Strike At Sanctity Of Tender Process | Employer Liable For Acts Of Employees Done In Course Of Employment

The High Court modified the sentence, holding: “The accused was taken into custody on 24.4.2024, and he has already undergone more than one year of sentence, which is more than sufficient after applying the principle of proportionality. Therefore, he is ordered to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by him and pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the N.D& P.S Act.”

The Court concluded: “In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of ‘N.D & P.S Act’. Subject to this modification, the rest of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is upheld.”

It directed that modified warrants be prepared and trial court records be returned.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Digvijay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:27073

Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 204 of 2024

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla