Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kailash Kumar vs The State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2025
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 273/2014
KAILASH KUMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned
judgment and order dated 03.04.2013, passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No.994-SB of 2005, whereby the High Court had
dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the present
Appellant-accused, and upheld the judgments and orders
dated 22.03.2005 and 23.03.2005, passed by the Special
Judge, Faridabad in NDPS Case No. 17 of 2003, convicting
the Appellant-accused for the offence punishable under
Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS
Act’), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years along with the
fine of Rs.1 lakhs, and in default of payment of fine, to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.03.29
further undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.
15:10:56 IST
Reason:
2. As transpiring from the records, on the basis of
the secret information received on 20.02.2003, the Sub-
2
Inspector, Randhir Singh of CIA staff, Faridabad along
with the other police officials held Naka, alongwith
Vinod Kumar (witness), and apprehended the Appellant-
accused with a bag. Since, the Appellant-accused opted
for being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thawar Singh, was called
on the spot and in his presence, the search of the bag of
the Appellant was made, from which Charas weighing 2.800
kgs was recovered. After completing the formality of the
seizure, and sealing of the samples of the substance
seized for scientific investigation, the Appellant-
accused was arrested.
3. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory,
the substance allegedly recovered from the Appellant was
found to be Charas (cannabis). The Investigating Officer,
after completing the investigation, had submitted the
charge-sheet before the Sessions Court, which tried the
Appellant for the alleged offence punishable under
Section 20 of the said Act.
4. The prosecution, to prove the charge levelled
against the Appellant-accused, had examined as many as
eight witnesses. The further statement of the Appellant-
accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in
which he denied the allegations levelled against him, and
examined four witnesses to prove his defence that he was
falsely implicated in the case.
3
5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on
record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated
earlier, which has been confirmed in the Appeal by the
High Court.
6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-accused that the Trial Court
and High Court had misappreciated the evidence on record
while convicting the Appellant. According to him, the
prosecution had not examined any independent witness in
support of its case and the witness, Vinod Kumar, who had
allegedly accompanied the police party, had supported the
Appellant-accused, when examined as the defence witness.
A faint attempt was also made by him to submit that there
was non-compliance of Section 52A and other provisions of
the NDPS Act.
7. However, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State taking the Court to the record of the
case, submitted that the prosecution had proved the guilt
of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that in view
of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two
Courts, this Court may not interfere with the same. He
further relied upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh
Dhiman vs State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 740 to
submit that the non-examination of the independent
witnesses would not ipso facto entitle the Appellant-
accused to seek acquittal. According to him, there was
due compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the
4
said Act.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsels for the parties and having gone through
the record of the case, it appears that the prosecution
had not examined any independent witness to support its
case, and the witness, Vinod Kumar, who was allegedly
present at the time of the recovery of the contraband
substance, from the Appellant-accused, was examined by
the Appellant-accused and not by the prosecution,
however, non-examination of the independent witness ipso
facto would not entitle the Appellant to seek acquittal.
9. As well settled in catena of decisions, there is no
absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as
witnesses and their depositions should be treated with
suspect. We cannot be oblivious to the ground reality
that generally the public at large are reluctant to come
forward to be witness to the incident in question and to
come to the Court to depose. We may quote a very apt
observation made in case of State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
vs. Sunil and Another (2001) 1 SCC 652.
“21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that
actions of the police officer should be approached
with initial distrust. We are aware that such a
notion was lavishly entertained during the British
period and policemen also knew about it. Its
hangover persisted during post-independent years
but it is time now to start placing at least
initial trust on the actions and the documents
made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot
start with the presumption that the police records
are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the
presumption should be the other way around. That
5
official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a
police officer gives evidence in court that a
certain article was recovered by him on the
strength of the statement made by the accused it
is open to the court to believe the version to be
correct if it is not otherwise shown to be
unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-
examination of witnesses or through any other
materials, to show that the evidence of the police
officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to
be acted upon in a particular case. If the court
has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of
such records of the police the court could
certainly take into account the fact that no other
independent person was present at the time of
recovery. But it is not a legally approvable
procedure to presume the police action as
unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such
action merely for the reason that police did not
collect signatures of independent persons in the
documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”
10. We may also reiterate what has been said by this
Court in umpteen number of cases that what is necessary
for proving the prosecution case is not the quantity but
the quality of the evidence. It may also be noted that
for the offence under the NDPS Act, a statutory
presumption is permissible to be raised by the Court with
regard to the existence of culpable mental state of the
accused, unless rebutted by the accused in his defence,
as contemplated in Section 35 of the said Act.
11. In the instant case, the Appellant accused was
found to have carried bag, from which the alleged
contraband substance – ‘Charas’ was found and recovered.
As per the three Judge Bench Judgment in State of H.P.
6
vs. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350, the articles like a
bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a thela etc. in which
incriminating article or substance is carried, do not
fall within the ambit of the word ‘person’ occurring in
Section 50 of the Act, and therefore the safeguards for
search of a person would not extend to his bag or other
article being carried by him. In any case, in the instant
case, the search of the accused was made in presence of
Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e. a Gazetted Officer,
as opted by him. Hence, there was due compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
12. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant that
there was non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act, is
also sans substance. Apart from the fact that no such
contention was raised before the Trial Court or the High
Court, nor any factual foundation was sought to be laid
in this regard during the course of trial on behalf of
the Appellant, as held by this Court recently in case of
Bharat Aambale Versus The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal
Appeal No. 250 of 2025), the non-compliance of the
Section 52 A would not be fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
13. We also do not find any substance in the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-accused that he was falsely implicated in the
case. As rightly held by the High Court, there was no
reason for the Court to discard the statements of the
7
official witnesses, when their statements were found to
be trustworthy and when there was no other evidence to
show hostility or enmity of the official witnesses with
the Appellant-accused.
14. In that view of the matter, the Appeal being devoid
of merits is dismissed. Since the Appellant has been
released on bail pending Appeal, he is directed to
surrender forthwith.
15. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant-accused that he has
no contact with the Appellant since the recent past.
Under the circumstances, let non-bailable warrant be
issued against the Appellant-accused, to be executed
through the concerned Station House Officer (SHO).
16. Registry is directed to do the needful for
compliance of the above direction.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
……………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
……………….J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
New Delhi
06-03-2025
8
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 273/2014
KAILASH KUMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
Date : 06-03-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALEFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AORUPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (MAMTA RAWAT)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link