Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3624 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Basant Singh

2025-11-14

Romesh Verma, Vivek Singh Thakur

body2025
JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal, as passed by the learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, dated 27.3.2015, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted in case FIR No. 161/2009, dated 21.12.2009, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi under Sections 20 , 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). 2. The facts, as enumerated by the prosecution, are that on 21.12.2009, ASI Ramesh Prasher, ASI Amar Nath, HC Bhim Singh, Constable Ravi Kumar, Constable Bhup Singh, Constable Himmat Ram and Lady Constable Gita Devi were present at Jhalogi for the purpose of patrolling. At about 4:15 P.M., in the afternoon, one Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-38-0615 came from Banjar side. The Investigating Officer ASI Ramesh Prasher tried to stop the vehicle and the vehicle got stopped at some distance. Name of the driver was asked by the I.O. and the driver of the vehicle told his name to be Yashpal, son of Ravinder Dutt resident of Tud, P.O. Bhugnara, Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra. Along with driver on the next seat, one person, namely, Basant Singh, son of Sh. Nathu Ram, resident of Village Banoh, P.O. Panjahada, Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra was having one rucksack, black and white in colour, in his lap. The aforesaid rucksack was having four zips and after opening the same, one polythene bag, on which ‘Mayur was written, containing black substance in the form of sticks and balls was found. As per experience of the I.O. the recovered substance was charas, which on weighing was found to be 2 kg 500 grams. Thereafter, the recovered contraband was again put in polythene bag and thereafter sealed in parcel with seal impression ‘Y’ at eight places. Specimen of seal impression was taken separately. ASI Ramesh Prasher filled NCB-I form, in triplicate and the seal impression was also embossed thereon. After taking into possession the case property, the I.O. sent ruqua Ext. PW4/B through PW3 Constable Bhup Singh to Police Station Aut, on the basis of which, an FIR came to be registered. The I.O. prepared the spot map and took the photographs. 3. ASI Ramesh Prasher filled NCB-I form, in triplicate and the seal impression was also embossed thereon. After taking into possession the case property, the I.O. sent ruqua Ext. PW4/B through PW3 Constable Bhup Singh to Police Station Aut, on the basis of which, an FIR came to be registered. The I.O. prepared the spot map and took the photographs. 3. During investigating, the case property was sent to SFSL Junga for chemical analysis and on receipt of the SFSL report and after completing all codal formalities, final report was filed in the court. 4. During the trial before the learned court below, one of the accused persons, namely, Yashpal, died and the proceedings against him were abated. The accused (respondent herein) was charged for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him and claimed himself to be innocent. However, the respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-State to file the instant appeal. 7. We have heard Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the records of the case in detail. 8. In order to substantive its case, the prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer of the case, Ramesh Prasher, who stepped into the witness box as PW4, who deposed that during the year 2009, he was posted in Police Station Aut as Investigating Officer. On 21.12.2009, he along with ASI Amar Singh, Constable Bhup Singh, Constable Ravi Kumar, Lady Constable Geeta Devi left the police station in a government vehicle No. HP33-1378 being driven by driver Himmat Ram in connection with patrolling. At about 4:15 P.M., they were at Jhalogi, where one vehicle Maruti car bearing No. HP38-0615 came from Banjar side and he signaled the same to stop and driver stopped the same at some distance. At about 4:15 P.M., they were at Jhalogi, where one vehicle Maruti car bearing No. HP38-0615 came from Banjar side and he signaled the same to stop and driver stopped the same at some distance. He asked the name of the driver in the presence of other police officials, who disclosed his name as Yashpal. The other person sitting beside the driver disclosed his name to be Basant Singh (respondent herein). The respondent was found kept rucksack, chitra colour, in his lap, which was having four zips. On checking the bag, one polythene envelope, upon which ‘Mayur’ was written containing black and brown colour substance in the shape of sticks and balls was found and as per experience of the I.O., it was found to be charas. On weighing the same, the substance was found to be 2 kg 500 grams. The said charas was put into the polythene envelope and then the envelope was packed in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal ‘Y’ at eight places. Seal, after its use, was handed over to ASI Amar Nath. Thereafter, Rukka, Ext. PW4/B was scribed and sent to the Police Station through Constable Bhup Singh. PW4 prepared the site plan, Ext. PW4/C and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He took the photographs of the spot, Ext. PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6 through an official camera. After completion of investigation, he handed over the parcel sealed with seal ‘Y’ at eight places, sameple seal ‘Y’ on a piece of cloth and NCB form to SHO Shrestha Thakur for resealing. Special report, Ext. PW4/G was sent to Addl. S.P. Mandi through Constable Ganesh Lal. 9. In his cross-examination, PW4 admitted that while leaving the police station towards Jhalogi and in the statements of the witnesses, there is no mention of vehicle No. HP-33-1378 along with its driver to be taken towards Jhalogi for routine checking. He stated that they left the police station at about 3:13 P.M. He denied that there is any temple or army camp at place Jhalogi. Self stated that it is a secluded place. He feigned ignorance that hundred of vehicles pass through the road because of National Highway. He did not remember that he had taken photographs, Ext. PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6. He admitted that the police vehicle, its driver, Constable Bhup Singh and ASI Amar Nath have not been shown in the photographs. Self stated that it is a secluded place. He feigned ignorance that hundred of vehicles pass through the road because of National Highway. He did not remember that he had taken photographs, Ext. PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6. He admitted that the police vehicle, its driver, Constable Bhup Singh and ASI Amar Nath have not been shown in the photographs. He stated that he had prepared the spot map, Ext. PW4/C. He stated that he did not search the persons, who were sitting in the car. Self stated that he carried out the search of the bag only. He stated that he did not find any article which connected that the bag in question pertained to the accused/respondent Basant Singh. He denied the suggestion that Basant Singh had no bag in his lap. He also denied the suggestion that a false case has been lodged against the accused Basant Singh. 10. To the similar extent, the official witness of the site namely ASI Amar Nath was examined by the prosecution in order to corroborate its case, who entered the witness box as PW1. He deposed that he remained posted as I.O. in Police Station Aut from January, 2008 to January, 2010. He stated that on 21.12.2010, he alongwith ASI Ramesh Prashar, HC Bhim Singh, Constable Ravi Kumar, Constable Bhup Singh, Constable Himmat Ram and LC Geeta Devi was on patrolling at Jhalogi. At about 4.15 P.M., one Maruti car Bearing No. HP38- 0615 came from Banjar side, which was signalled to stop by ASI Ramesh Prashar and the driver stopped the vehicle at some distance. The persons inside the vehicle i.e. Driver disclosed his name to be Yashpal and the other person told his name to be Basant Singh. Accused Basant Singh was holding one rucksack of black and white colour having 4 zips in his lap, which was checked by ASI Ramesh Prasher. On checking the same, one polythene carry bag, over which 'Mayur' was written, containing black coloured substance in the shape of battis and balls was recovered. As per experience, the substance was found to be charas and on weighing, it was found to be 2 kg 500 grams. The recovered charas was put back into the polythene envelope and packed into a cloth parcel and sealed with seal ‘Y’ at 8 places. Sample seal was taken on a piece of cloth, Ex. As per experience, the substance was found to be charas and on weighing, it was found to be 2 kg 500 grams. The recovered charas was put back into the polythene envelope and packed into a cloth parcel and sealed with seal ‘Y’ at 8 places. Sample seal was taken on a piece of cloth, Ex. PW-1/A, which bears his signature and that of LC Geeta Devi, Basant Singh and Yashpal. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled-in on the spot. Seal impression ‘Y’ was embossed upon it. 11. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that they left the police station Aut at about 3:00 P.M. towards Jhalogi. He stated that they checked about 15-20 vehicles between Police Station Aut and Jhalogi. All the police officials were in uniform. He specifically stated that they had no vehicle. He admitted that the car driver was able to go further on his direction because they were not having any vehicle to chase the car of the accused. He stated that PW4 I.O. had checked the occupants of the car while sitting in the car. He stated that he did not remember whether the I.O. had tried to associate the occupants of the vehicles passing through the road as witnesses. He admitted that place Thalout is having hundred of shops. He stated that he had not brought the seal. He denied that any seal was handed over to him by the I.O. Ext. PW1/B was written by him. They had no prior information that cannabis was being carried in the vehicle HP38-0615. He stated that he had prepared the spot map. He feigned ignorance as to who had filled in the NCB form. He denied the suggestion that they recovered some bag from the dickey of the car and immediately they took the occupants of the car along with its driver to the Police Station Aut. He also denied the suggestion that a false case has been prepared against Basant Singh. 12. PW2 is HC Kashmir Singh, who deposed that on 21.12.2009, ASI Ramesh Lal, I.O. Police Station Aut deposited with him one parcel allegedly containing 2 kgs 500 grams charas, which was sealed with seal ‘Y’ at 8 places and resealed with seal ‘N’ at six places alongwith NCB form in triplicate, sample seals, one ‘pithu’ bag and Maruti car in case FIR No.161/09. He made entry to this effect in the malkhana register at Sr. No.451, Ex. PW-2/A. He further stated that on 23.12.2009, he sent the sealed parcel alongwith NCB form in triplicate, photocopy of FIR and seizure meno vide R.C. 127/09, Ex. PW-2/B, through HHC Rup Singh to FSL Junga. 13. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that there is no mentioning of number of seals affixed on the parcel. All the entries of Malkhana register were brought forwarded on 1.1.2010. He admitted that the entries do not mention the time when the case property was deposited with him. He admitted that entry at Sr. No.451 is not of 21.12.2009. Self stated that it has been brought forwarded from the malkhana register, which he had brought from dated 21.12.2009. 14. The prosecution has also examined Constable Bhup Singh, witness of the spot, who appeared as PW3. He deposed that during the year 2009, he remained posted as Constable General duty in Police Station Aut. On 21.12.2009, he alongwith ASI Ramesh, ASI Amar Nath, HC Bhim Singh, Constable Ravi Kumar, Constable Himmat Kumar and LC Geeta Devi No.607 was on patrolling at Jhalogi. At about 4:15 P.M, one Maruti car bearing No. HP38-0615 came from Banjar side, which was signalled to stop by ASI Ramesh Prashar and the driver stopped the vehicle at some distance. When the driver and other person sitting in the car were inquired, driver of the vehicle disclosed his name to be Yashpal and the other person told his name to be Basant Singh, who were from Nurpur, Kangra. Accused Basant Singh was holding one rucksack of black and white colour having 4 zips in his lap, which was checked by ASI Ramesh Prasher. On checking the rucksack, one polythene carry bag, over which 'Mayur' was written, containing black coloured substance in the shape of battis and balls was recovered. Per experience, it was found to be charas. On weighing, the substance was found to be 2 kgs 500 grams. The recovered charas was put back into the polythene envelope and packed into a cloth parcel and sealed with seal ‘Y’ at 8 places. PW3 further deposed that NCB form in triplicate was filled-in on the spot. Seal impression ‘Y’ was embossed upon it. On weighing, the substance was found to be 2 kgs 500 grams. The recovered charas was put back into the polythene envelope and packed into a cloth parcel and sealed with seal ‘Y’ at 8 places. PW3 further deposed that NCB form in triplicate was filled-in on the spot. Seal impression ‘Y’ was embossed upon it. He handed over the rukka to the MHC in the police station and MHC after registration of the FIR handed over the case file to him and he, in turn, handed over the same to the Investigating Officer on the spot. 15. In his cross-examination, he stated that they left the police station at about 3:15/3:30 P.M. on foot and reached Jhalogi at about 4:15 P.M.. He admitted that the I.O. had stated at police station that we would apprehend the persons who were having cannabis. He stated that information was not reduced into writing at the police station. He and other officials checked about 2-3 vehicles on the way to Jhalogi. He stated that they had no vehicle on the date of occurrence. Search of the occupants of the car was taken after alighting them from the vehicle. Both the occupants of the car were searched from their body. The rukka was written by ASI Ramesh Prashar. He stated that he has not been shown in the photographs. He could not say that the photographs are of Mandi-Manali National Highway. 16. In his re-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that there is no mention about carrying out the personal search of the accused persons and preparation of the memo of personal search after making them apprised about their legal right. 17. PW5 HC Laxman Dass, who was posted as Reader to Addl. S.P. Mandi during the year 2009, testified that on 23.12.2009, Addl. S.P. had handed over to him special report of case FIR No. 161/09, Ext. PW4/G. 18. PW6 HHC Roop Singh, testified that on 23.12.2009 MHC Kashmir Singh, Police Station Aut, had handed over to him one parcel allegedly containing 2 kg 500 grams of charas which was sealed with seal ‘Y’ at eight places along with other articles to be deposited at FSL Junga, which he deposited on 23.12.2009 vide RC Ext. PW2/B. 19. PW7 Constable Sudeep Kumar deposed that he was sent to FSL Junga on 22.1.2010 for collecting the result of case FIR No. 161/09. PW2/B. 19. PW7 Constable Sudeep Kumar deposed that he was sent to FSL Junga on 22.1.2010 for collecting the result of case FIR No. 161/09. 20. PW8 HC Hans Raj deposed that he made entry of GD No. 43(a), Ext. PW8/A regarding arrival of police party. 21. PW9 Inspector Sureshtha Thakur, deposed that on 21.12.2009, one rukka was sent by ASI Ramesh through Constable Bhup Singh, on the basis of which, she lodged an FIR, Ext. PW9/A and made endorsement, Ext.PW9/B on the rukka and handed over the case file to Constable Bhup Singh. 22. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its various decisions, has held that in the case of acquittal, scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. The Apex Court has held that unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, only in those circumstances interference can be done by the appellate court. It is not permissible to interfere with the findings of acquittal and equally, if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the appellate court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2119/2010, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram , decided on 28.7.2022, has held as under:- “The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 24. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2025) 5 SCC 433 , has held as under:- “23. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 24. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2025) 5 SCC 433 , has held as under:- “23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482- 83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. 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.” 24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned 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. 13. In the instant case, the learned trial judge on the basis of ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses has held that the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as well as under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. Since the appeal of the said accused No.1-Jadgish Singh is disposed of as abated, we did not go into the findings against the said accused.” 25. In Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) Scale 513, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. In Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) Scale 513, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Dy. 23115/2025, titled as Brijesh Singh vs. State of U.P. , decided on 18.6.2025, has held as under:- “Law is well settled that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the Courts below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused. In the present case, we do not find any view other than that taken by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges is permissible.” 27. Perusal of the judgments, as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, demonstrates that the scope of interference in the case of acquittal is very limited. It has been held that the prosecution in order to prove its case must establish the guilt of the accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It has been held that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been further held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 28. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 28. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 29. Now adverting to the facts and merits of the case, it would be clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent and the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record do not establish on record that the respondent was involved in the alleged commission of offence. 30. PW4, Investigating Officer of the case, has categorically stated that the police party left the police station in government vehicle No. HP-33-1378 being driven by driver Himmat Ram in connection with patrolling. However, said statement has been contradicted by deposition of PW1 ASI Amar Singh, who stated that the police party did not have vehicle. PW1 admitted that the car driver was able to go further on his direction because the police party was not having any vehicle to chase the car of the accused. PW4 has also admitted in his cross-examination that from leaving the police station towards Jhalogi and in the statements of all witnesses, there is no mention of vehicle No. HP 33-1378. 31. To the similar extent is the statement of PW3 Constable Bhup Singh, who stated that the police party left the Police Station at about 3:15/3:30 P.M. on feet and reached the spot (Jhalogi) at about 4:15 P.M. 32. Apart from above, it would be noticed from the perusal of the spot map, Ext. PW4/C that there is no official vehicle used by the police party, which goes contrary to the statement of PW4. 33. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied only on the statements of the official witnesses and no independent witness was associated by the police party in order to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. 34. PW4/C that there is no official vehicle used by the police party, which goes contrary to the statement of PW4. 33. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied only on the statements of the official witnesses and no independent witness was associated by the police party in order to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. 34. PW1 ASI Amar Nath has feigned ignorance about the fact that the Investigating Officer had tried to associate the occupants of the vehicle passing through the road as witnesses. He deposed that the police party had checked about 15-20 vehicles between Police Station Aut and Jhalogi. 35. To the similar effect is the statement of PW3 Constable Bhup Singh, who stated that on the said date, he along with police party had checked about 2-3 vehicles on the way to Jhalogi. 36. The prosecution has failed to associate any independent witness to substantiate its case, reasons best known to it, as it has come in the statements of official witnesses that the alleged place is at National Highway and during the checking many vehicles were crossing at that time and the spot was not a secluded one at all, as alleged by the prosecution, from where the independent witness could not have been associated. In absence of doing so, learned Court below has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. 37. PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he prepared the spot map, however statement of of PW4 is contrary, who claimed to have prepared the spot map, Ext.PW4/C and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to explain this contradiction in the depositions of official witnesses. 38. Even in the police rapat No. 26 (A), dated 21.12.2009, there is no mention of the use of the vehicle by the police party. To the similar extent, the marginal witnesses ASI Amar Nath and Constable Bhup Singh, members of the police party, are not visible in the photographs of the spot, Ext. PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6. 39. Perusal of the statement of PW4 goes to show that in his examination-in-chief he deposed that he had taken the photographs of the spot, Ext.PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6 through official camera, however during his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance that he had clicked the same. 40. PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6. 39. Perusal of the statement of PW4 goes to show that in his examination-in-chief he deposed that he had taken the photographs of the spot, Ext.PW4/F-1 to Ext. PW4/F-6 through official camera, however during his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance that he had clicked the same. 40. In the present case, PW3 Constable Bhup Singh, in his deposition/cross-examination has stated that the police officials left the Police Station at about 3:15/3:30 P.M. They left on foot and reached at about 4:15 P.M. at place Jhalogi. He stated that it is correct that the I.O. has stated at Police Station that they will apprehend the persons, who were having cannabis. The information was not reduced into writing at the police station. 41. From the perusal of the aforesaid statement, it reveals that the police officials were having prior information about the contraband. 42. The key requirement of Section 42 states that when an officer receives an information from a person or has personal knowledge about the offence committed under the Act, he must record this information in writing. Further, if the officer believes that obtaining a warrant would allow the suspect to escape or conceal evidence and he decides to conduct the search between sunset and sunrise, he must record grounds of belief. Further requirement is that a copy of the information or recorded grounds of belief must be sent to the immediate officer superior within 72 hours. 43. The prosecution has failed to comply with this important requirement of Section 42 of the Act, as a result of which, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and bring home guilt of the respondent. 44. Interestingly, no log book of the vehicle has been produced by the prosecution in order to substantiate its case. Moreover, seal ‘Y’ has also not been produced in the Court, which is fatal to the prosecution story. 45. Moreover, from the conjoint reading of statement of official witnesses, more particularly that of PW1, PW3 and PW4, it would be clear that there are material contradictions, which affect the core or substratum of the prosecution case with regard to apprehension of the respondent in the manner alleged by the prosecution in the final report submitted to the Court. 45. Moreover, from the conjoint reading of statement of official witnesses, more particularly that of PW1, PW3 and PW4, it would be clear that there are material contradictions, which affect the core or substratum of the prosecution case with regard to apprehension of the respondent in the manner alleged by the prosecution in the final report submitted to the Court. Had all these officials participated in the investigation, as projected by the prosecution, then their statements ought to have been consistent, whereas it is not so. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in order to prove a person guilty of the offence, he has to be associated and connected with the alleged offence. Merely on the assumption and presumption, a person cannot be convicted without any corroborative evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to link and connect the accused/respondent with the alleged commission of offence. 47. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record after thrashing the entire evidence and material for the determination of the case and thus has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him and passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent. 48. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 49. The bails bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are discharged. 50. Records be sent down.