1 2025:CGHC:46087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 594 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Chotelal S/o Johan Jangde Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Cheudih, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chahttisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, PL For Respondent : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 10/09/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa in Special Case No.13/2015, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (a)(i) of the Narcotic PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.09.11 17:01:15 +0530 2 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth the “NDPS Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2015 a secret information was received by the Police Station Pamgarh that the respondent/accused in an unauthorized manner has planted cannabis plant in his badi (garden) located at Village Cheudih. Pursuant to this information, an intimation was sent to independent witnesses Manoj Kumar (PW-1) and Laxmikant (PW-3), both residents of Pamgarh, requesting their presence during the raid vide Ex-P/1. A Mukhbari Panchanama was prepared vide Ex-P/2 and information (Ex-P/3) was also sent to the superior officer in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer, Bhaskar Sharma (PW-9), has issued a notice to the respondent/accused, informing of his legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer vide Ex- P/4. The Investigating Officer also conducted a personal search of himself before the accused vide Ex-P/5 and of the other members of the raiding party vide Ex-P/6. The accused gave his written consent for search vide Ex-P/7 by the Investigating Officer. During search (Ex-P/8 and Ex-P/9), five cannabis plants were found in the badi from the possession of the respondent/accused, which were identified as cannabis plants vide Ex-P/11. Seizure memo was prepared vide Ex-P/12. Crime details form and sketch map were prepared vide Ex-P/13. Patwari, Singhari Ram Porthe (PW-7) prepared the spot map vide Ex-P/14 along with revenue records (Ex-14A and Ex-14B). Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized cannabis plants were sent for the FSL 3 examination and the FSL report (Ex-P/21) confirmed that the seized plants were cannabis. Based on the aforesaid information, zero FIR was initially registered (Ex-P/25) and a numbered FIR was subsequently registered vide Ex-P/26. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents vide Ex-P/1 to Ex- P/30. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. She would further submit that one of the independent witnesses, namely Laxmikant (PW-3), has categorically supported the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the Investigating Officer has been found reliable, as nothing adverse was elicited during cross-examination. Hence, the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, as there are serious flaws in the prosecution’s case. Hence, the trial Court has 4 rightly acquitted the respondent/accused by the impugned judgment, which is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Bhashkar Sharma (PW-9), Sub Inspector, deposed that on 27.06.2015, he received a secret information that the respondent/accused had illegally planted cannabis plants in his badi and the said fact was recorded in Mukhbir Panchanama (Ex-P/2). In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that both the independent witnesses, Manoj Kumar (PW-1) and Laxmikant (PW-3), had accompanied him to the spot. However, he was unable to recall through which constable the notice was served to the said independent witnesses, despite the fact that both are residents of Village Pamagarh, where the police station is located, although the search was conducted at Village Cheudih. 9. Manoj Kumar (PW-1) was declared hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. However, he categorically deposed that no proceedings were conducted in his presence vide Ex-P/1 to P/14. He further stated that the other independent witness, Laxmikant (PW-3), did not accompany him to the police station. 10.Laxmikant (PW-3), in his cross-examination (para 4), stated that the police had given him the notice and called him directly to the spot and he did not support the Investigating officer’s version that both he and Manoj Kumar had accompanied the officer to Village Cheudih for the search. Further, he admitted that he was specifically called to the spot itself. 5 11.Singhari Ram Porthe (PW-7), Patwari, has only proved the map (Ex-P/14), however, he has not proved the patwari map indicating the specific khasra number in which the spot is situated, nor has he established that the said land is recorded in the name of the respondent/accused. The Patwari merely stated that he prepared the map (Ex-P/14) based on information provided by the witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that both the witnesses, Manoj Kumar (PW-1) and Laxmikant (PW-3), are not the residents of Village Cheudih, where the alleged incident took place, but are residents of a different village. Furthermore, Manoj Kumar (PW-1) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Laxmikant (PW-3) has also not clearly stated how he came to know that the badi belonged to the respondent/accused. Moreover, the Patwari himself did not carry out any demarcation to verify this fact, nor did he prove any Patwari Map. 12.Jamuna Prasad (PW-2) and Hirawan (PW-5) have also not supported the search proceedings, particularly with respect to the personal search of the panch witness vide Ex-P/5 and Ex-P/15. Jamuna Prasad (PW-2) and Hirawan (PW-5), both residents of Village Cheudih, have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Even thereafter, the prosecution failed to elicit any material evidence that could connect the respondent/accused with the aforesaid offence. Furthermore, Learned trial Court has rightly recorded the fact in the impugned judgment that in the seizure memo (Ex-P/12), Crime No.172/15 was mentioned. However, considering that the search and seizure took place at Village Cheudih, it is unclear how the crime number was already 6 available, for which no satisfactory explanation regarding the pre- existence of the crime number has been provided on record. 13.Ramdular Sahu (PW-4), Head Constable, admitted that in the acknowledgment of the deposit of the seized article (Ex-P/16), there is no mention of the deposit of any sample. K.L. Yadav (PW-8), the then S.H.O denied the fact that both the independent witnesses were familiar to him or were ‘pocket witnesses’ of Police Station Pamgarh. 14.In view of the aforesaid discussion, and also taking into consideration the infirmities found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that one of the seizure witnesses has completely turned hostile. Moreover, the Investigating Officer failed to satisfactorily explain how the independent witnesses were called to the spot, leading to inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove by adducing any cogent evidence that the spot belongs to the respondent/accused, as no Patwari map has been duly proved on record. 15.In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to 7 whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 16.Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and 8 convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 17.Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 18.From scanning of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 19.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka