2026:HHC:40679-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. : 357 of 2015 Reserved on : 07.09.2026 Decided on : 23.09.2026 Uploaded on : 23.09.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh .…Appellant. Versus Rati Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhupesh Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellant : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, and Mr. Navishek Kashyap, Advocates. Bhupesh Sharma, Judge This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2014 passed by learned Special Judge Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Session Trial No.5-S/7 of 2013, titled as ‘State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rati Ram’, whereby the respondent (herein after 2 referred to as 'accused') has been acquitted of the charges under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The accused was sent to face trial for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985, by SHO Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Case FIR Number 60/2013 dated 08.03.2013 under Section 20 NDPS Act. The accused was prosecuted for the said offence, and was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2014 in Sessions Trial No.5-S/7 of 2013, titled as ‘State of H.P. versus Rati Ram’. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in short, are as under: 3(a) On 08.03.2013 at about 09:30 PM at Shamti, near Kali Mata Temple, on Solan-Rajgarh Road, the accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 1 kg 200 grams of ‘Charas’ (Cannabis). 3(b). On 08.03.2013, at 08:00 PM, a police party headed by HC Ambi Lal No.90 of Special Investigation Unit (SIU) left for routine night patrolling, law and order duty and crime detection 3 duty towards Kotlanala, Shamti, Majhgaon and Oachhghat, etc., vide Rapat No.10, Roznamcha dated 08.03.2013. He was accompanied by other police officials, namely Constable Ajay Kumar No.432, Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 and Constable Amit Kumar No.653. At about 09:30 PM, the police party was present at a place near Kali Mata Temple on Solan- Rajgarh Road. The police party spotted the accused coming on foot from Rajgarh side carrying a micron bag held in his right hand. The accused on seeing the police party got frightened. The police, on seeing the suspicious conduct of the accused apprehended and thereafter, conducted the search of the carry bag in his possession, leading to recovery of 1.200 kgs of ‘Charas’ (Cannabis). The police party, prior to conducting the search of the micron bag, in possession of the accused, offered their search vide separate search memo. Pursuant to the recovery of 1.200 kgs ‘Charas’ (Cannabis) from conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, the Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No.90 proceeded with conducting seizure formalities. The recovered contraband i.e. 1.200 kgs of ‘Charas’ (Cannabis), was put in the same micron carry bag, which was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing three seals of impression 'W'. 4 Sample seal impression 'W' was taken on a separate piece of cloth and the seal 'W' after its use was handed over to Constable Pawan Kumar No.668. The search, recovery and seizure formalities were carried out in the presence of the accused and two official witnesses, namely Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 and Constable Amit Kumar No.653 of SIU, Solan. Pursuant to completing of the seizure formalities, the Investigating Officer filled the relevant columns of NCB-form in triplicate. Thereafter, the case property along with seal impression ‘W’, NCB-form in triplicate were taken into possession vide recovery and seizure memo, in presence of official witnesses as referred above. The signatures of the accused and the witnesses were obtained on the said memo. The copy of the same was handed over to the accused free of cost. The Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No.90, after completing search and seizure formalities, scribed rukka, which was sent through Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 at Police Station, Sadar Solan, and in pursuance thereof, Case FIR No.60/2013 dated 08.03.2013 under Section 20 NDPS Act was registered against the accused at Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. 5 3(c). Investigating Officer prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested in accordance with law at 11:50 PM. Thereafter, the police party along with accused and the contraband returned to the Police Station, Sadar, at 12:10 AM vide GD Entry No.2(A). the Investigating Officer, thereafter presented the sealed parcel containing contraband for the purpose of re-sealing before SI Nishant Kumar. The re-sealing of the case property was conducted by affixing three seals of impression ‘R’. Sample seal impression of re-seal ‘R’ was taken separately for the purpose of record. He also filled the relevant columns of NCB-form in triplicate. Thereafter, the case property along with documents were handed over to HHC Kanshi Ram No.532, MHC, Police Station, Sadar Solan, for safe custody. 3(d) On 09.03.2013 at 12:30 PM, vide Rapat No.7 Roznamcha dated 09.03.2013, the Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No.90 sent special report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, 1985, to the Supervisory Officer of Police Station, Sadar through Constable Pawan Kumar No.668. In pursuance to the receipt of the special report, it was endorsed and the relevant entries were made in the Special Reports Register at Serial 6 No.60/3 dated 09.03.2013. The case property was later sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, through Constable Om Prakash No.272 vide RC No.272/12-13 dated 11.03.2013, and vide State Forensice Science Laboratory Report No.396 NDPS Division 118/2013, substance subjected to the examination was found extract of Cannabis and sample of ‘Charas’. 3(e) Pursuant to the completion of investigation, the accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 1.200 kgs of ‘Charas’ (Cannabis). Accordingly, he was found to have committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act and final report under Section 178(2) of Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed before learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. The accused was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No.5-S/7 of 2013, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Rati Ram’ by learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 4. The accused was charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide order dated 11.07.2013. 7 5. The prosecution, in order to prove the allegations and accusations, against the accused examined nine witnesses. PW-3, Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 is official witness of search, recovery and seizure of the contraband from the accused, PW-2 HC Hardev Singh No.04 being reader to Additional SP, Solan received the special report under Section 57 NDPS Act and made requisite entries in the Special Reports Register. PW-3 HHC Kanshi Ram No.532 MHC Police Station Sadar registered the case FIR No.60/2013 dated 08.03.2013 and also handed over the case property to Constable Om Prakash No.272 to be deposited with State FSL Junga. PW-4 HC Kalpana No.722 is a formal witness, PW-5 Constable Om Prakash No.272 took the case property to State FSL, Junga for chemical examination, PW-6 HC Sohan Lal No.101 is a formal witness, PW-7 Inspector Chaman Lal prepared the final report under Section 178(2) of Cr.PC and is formal witness, the Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No.90 was examined as PW- 8 and SI Nishant Kumar as PW-9. 6. The prosecution, apart from examining the aforesaid official witnesses has also heavily relied upon the documentary evidence placed on record, which was collected 8 and produced against the accused during the course of investigation i.e. consent memo (Ex.PW1/A), recovery memo (Ex.PW1/B), sample seal (Ext.PW1/C), search memo (Ex.PW1/D), Parcel (Ex.P1), micron bag (Ex.P2), Charas dated 25.11.2013 (Ex.P3), seizure memo, dated 25.11.2013 (Ex.PW1/E), photographs dated 25.11.2013 (Ex.PW1/F1 to F3), CD dated 25.11.2013 (Ex.PW1/F-4), Special report dated 25.11.2014 (Ex.PW2/A), endorsement on special report dated 25.11.2014 (Ex. PW2/B), copy of abstract dated 25.11.2014 (Ex.PW2/C), copy of malkhana register dated 25.11.2014 (Ex.PW3/A), copy of RC dated 25.11.2014 (Ex. PW3/B), rapat No.10 dated 26.11.2013 (Ex.PW4/A), rapat No.7 dated 26.11.2013 (Ex.PW4/B), copy of FIR dated 26.11.2013 (Ex.PW6/A), CIPA certificate dated 26.11.2013 (Ex. PW6/B), daily diary dated 26.11.2013 (Ex. PW6/C), daily diary dated 26.11.2013 (Ex.PW6/D), SFSL report dated 27.11.2013 (Ex. PW7/A), identification memo dated 27.11.2013 (Ex. PW8/A), rukka dated 27.11.2013 (Ex.PW8/B), endorsement on rukka dated 7.1.2014 (Ex.PW9/A), sample seal dated 7.1.2014 (Ex.PW9/B) and reseal certificate dated 7.1.2014 (Ex.PW9/C). 9 7. The substance of the prosecution case was put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, on 21.01.2014, wherein he has denied the prosecution case in its entirety by raising the defence of denial simpliciter and false implication at the behest of the Police. 8. The learned Trial Court after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No. 5-S/7 of 2013, titled as ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rati Ram’. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No. 5-S/7 of 2013, titled as ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rati Ram’, the State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before this Court on various grounds. 10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (i) “That the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court is wrong on facts as well as on law, hence, liable to be set-aside. 10 (ii) That the impugned judgment is based on hypothetical reasoning surmises and conjectures hence liable to be set-aside. (iii) That the Learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner and has acquitted the accused person on the flimsy grounds. (iv) That the Learned Trial Court has not only failed to view the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective but at the same time has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. The reasoning of the Trial Court is manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable as there was warrant at all for the Trial Court to discard the well reasoned and consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses on material point. (v) That the Learned Trial Court has discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of enmity no reasons what so ever have been assigned for discarding the version of official witnesses. The acquittal in this case is in disregard of material evidence on record and as such, the same is unreasonable, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. (vi) That the Id. trial court has failed to appreciate the consistent and corroborative statements of PW-1 C. Pawan Kumar and PW-8 H.C. Ambi Lal who has stated that the place of recovery was lonely and secluded and it was 9.30 p.m. when the accused was 11 spotted by the police party as such there was no scope of joining independent witnesses being odd hours and place being secluded, as such the findings of the trial court are totally wrong and deserve to be set-aside. (vii) That the Id. trial court has not taken into account that the recovery of the contraband from the accused was a chance recovery. There was no use of joining the independent witnesses after affecting the recovery of contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused and the same is not the requirement of law as such the finding of acquittal on this ground deserve to be set-aside. (viii) That the Id. trial court has overlooked the fact that there was no scope for the police party to plant such a large quantity of charas upon accused to rope up him in such a heinous crime and there is no iota of evidence to show that the police party was enemical to the accused to falsely implicate him in the instant case as such findings of acquittal arrived at by ld. trial court deserves to be reversed. (ix) That the Id. trial court has wrongly disbelieved the sworn in testimony and natural version of the official witnesses without giving any plausible explanation for rejecting their version. The veracity of the official witnesses stands at par with those of any other witnesses unless their statements are not corroborative and contradictory as such the ld. trial 12 court has wrongly acquitted the accused on this ground and the same deserve to be set-aside. (x) That no other appeal or revision arising out of the impugned judgment has been filed either in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.” 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2014. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the material evidence on record, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The official witnesses of search, recovery and seizure of the contraband in their respective statements have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case, which clearly establishes complicity of the accused for being in exclusive and conscious possession of 1.200 kgs of ‘Charas (Cannabis). There is no procedural lapse rendering the prosecution case vulnerable and unacceptable. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and liable to be set aside, and the accused needs to be convicted. 13 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that there is no material evidence on record to prove the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused. He also pointed out that no independent witnesses were associated by the Investigating Officer at the time of alleged apprehension and search of the accused, despite availability of the same. The learned Trial Court, after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused and the findings of the learned Trial Court warrant no interference. 14. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Special Judge, on considering and evaluating the material and evidence, disbelieved the prosecution case on the basis of material contradictions and infirmities emerging on the record. Learned Trial Court also did not accept the plea that the Investigating Officer had no opportunity to associate the independent witnesses. As per the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, the alleged recovery spot is situated in the vicinity where there are shops and residential houses, and the investigating officer had sufficient time and opportunity to 14 look for independent witnesses. However, he failed to do so without any plausible reasons, thereby rendering the prosecution case suspicious and vulnerable. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. Since the present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal, therefore, the scope of powers of the Appellate Court in the case of an appeal against acquittal needs to be considered before embarking upon the factual matrix. 16. The scope of the powers of the Appellate Court in case of an appeal against acquittal has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, which reads as under :- "10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup [1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly 15 not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: "7...........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.” 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu [3], Madan Mohan Singh [4], Atley [5] , Aher Raja Khima [6], Balbir Singh [7], M.G. Agarwal [8], Noor Khan [9], Khedu Mohton [10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade [11], Lekha Yadav [12], Khem Karan [13], Bishan Singh [14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai [15], K. Gopal Reddy [16], Tota Singh [17], Ram Kumar [18], Madan Lal [19], Sambasivan [20], 16 Bhagwan Singh [21], Harijana Thirupala [22], C. Antony [23], K. Gopalakrishna [24], Sanjay Thakran [25] and Chandrappa [26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in 17 grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re- evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & another, (2022) 3 SCC 471, observed as under:- “31. The circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court may be summarized as follows: 31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when the order of acquittal has been confirmed up to the High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of U.P. v. Sahai 18 (1982) 1 SCC 352] Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court. [Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297] An appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies acquittal. [State of Haryana vs. Lakhbir] 31.2. However, this Court has on certain occasions, set aside the order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The circumstances under which this Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction, may be summarized as follows: 31.2.1.Where the approach or reasoning of the High Court is perverse; (a) Where incontrovertible evidence has been rejected by the High Court based on suspicion and surmises, which are rather unrealistic. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393] For example, where direct, unanimous accounts of the eyewitnesses, were discounted without cogent reasoning. [State of U.P. vs. Shanker 1980 Supp SCC 489] (b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of relatives, living in the same house as the victim, were discounted on the ground that they were “interested” witnesses. [State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh (1980) 19 (c) Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393] (d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim was rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant ground that they did not explain the injury found on one of the persons present at the site of occurrence of the crime. [Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297] (e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic standard of “implicit proof” rather than that of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and therefore evaluated the evidence in a flawed manner. [State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram (1986) 4 SCC 99] (f) Where the High Court rejected circumstantial evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious theory, which were beyond the plea of the accused; [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610] (g) Where the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that he had no adequate motive to commit the offence, although, in the said case, there was strong direct evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, thereby making it necessary on the part of the prosecution 20 to establish “motive”. [State of A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah (1990) 1 SCC 445] 31.2.2.Where acquittal would result is gross miscarriage of justice; (a) Where the findings of the High Court, disconnecting the accused persons with the crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence, [State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh 1989 Supp (1) SCC] or based on extenuating circumstances which were purely based in imagination and fantasy [State of U.P. v. Pussu (1983) 3 SCC 502] (b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial, which delay was attributable not to the tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting agencies, but to the conduct of the accused himself; or where accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610].” 18. In H.D. Sundara & others vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after reappreciating evidence, it is of the view that 21 the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant portion of the above judgment is as under:- “8. In this appeal, were are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarized as follows: 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 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. 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 22 proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. 9. Normally, when an appellate court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the appellate court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The appellate court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court must first decide whether the trial court’s view was a possible view. The appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after reappreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the appellate court must see whether the view taken by the trial court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 19. It is more than settled that the powers of Appellate Court while hearing the appeals against the acquittal are not unbridled. There is a clear caveat that in case the view arrived at by the trial Court is a possible one borne from the material on 23 record, the same cannot be viewed differently, even if, there is a possibility of any other view. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, wherein it has been held as under: “Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal: 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 20. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and 24 reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “12. 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.” 21. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellant Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court. 22. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. 25 In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 23. Keeping in view the above noted exposition, it appears that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is correct, considering the material and evidence adduced by the prosecution and which duly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. The judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2014 cannot be faulted. 24. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended along with the contraband at a place near Kali Mata Temple, Solan-Rajgarh State Highway on 08.03.2013 at 9:30 PM. No independent witnesses were associated at the relevant time when the accused was apprehended, searched and also during the seizure of the contraband. As per the evidence of the principal prosecution witnesses, namely Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 (PW-1) and HC Ambi Lal No. 90 (PW-8), the independent witnesses could not be associated since the accused was apprehended 26 during the night hours and all the shops in the near vicinity were closed and no witness was present on the spot. In order to ascertain whether the Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No. 90 (PW-8) had sufficient time and opportunity to associate the independent witnesses, and whether he made any efforts in this regard, the prosecution evidence in its entirety needs to be considered. However, before embarking upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant case law, which is attracted to the facts of the present case. 25. In Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 12 SCC 557, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-association of independent witnesses will not be fatal to the prosecution case, however, the Court will have to scrutinize the statements of prosecution witnesses carefully. 26. The aforesaid position was reiterated in Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197. Similarly, in Kehar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2825, it was held that 27 “The Court has to be most circumspect while appreciating the evidence of official witnesses to rule out possibility of false implication of the accused, especially when such a plea is raised by the defense.” 27. A similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgments of this Court in Raftar alias Tari v. State of HP, (2022) Supreme HP 345, and in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2020 titled Dilber Begum v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 28. Thus, in view of the binding precedents of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the non-association of independent witnesses is not fatal, and the prosecution's case cannot be discarded due to non-association of independent witnesses, however, the Court is bound to carefully scrutinize the testimonies of the official witnesses. If the prosecution is able to establish the reasons and circumstances preventing for non-association of independent witnesses, therefore, the same is liable to be accepted. 29. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, we have carefully gone through and considered the oral and documentary 28 evidence adduced by the prosecution to ascertain the aforesaid disputed fact. 30. PW-1 Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 is official witness of search, recovery, and seizure, duly reflected in the memo Ex. PW-1/D. Perusal of the aforesaid document shows that the accused was apprehended and searched by the investigating officer HC Ambi Lal No.90 (PW-8) in the presence of Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 (PW-1) and Constable Amit Kumar No.653. As per the evidence of Constable Pawan Kumar No.668, the place where accused met the police party and where his search was conducted is a lonely place having no residential colony nearby. However, he has fairly admitted in his cross-examination that there is a ‘Thakur Dhaba’ situated about 150 meters from the Kali Mata Temple on Rajgarh Road. He has also admitted that one meridan medicine factory is also on the road which is about 1 km away. Although he has denied that on the way from Khundidhar towards Kali Mata Temple, Shamti, there is a liquor vend and number of shops and dhabas. 29 31. Admittedly, the police party, as per the evidence of this witness, reached on the spot at 9:00 PM. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the police officials apprehended the accused at odd hours during the night time. Furthermore, it is also evident after going through his evidence that the Investigating Officer did not make any endeavor to look for independent witnesses, as no official from the police search party was sent for the same. 32. PW-8 HC Ambi Lal No.90, being Investigating Officer (PW-8), has testified that no independent witnesses could be associated due to night hours as the place was lonely and deserted. However, the aforesaid witness in his cross- examination has admitted that adjacent to the temple there are shops towards Solan up to Kotlanala. He has also admitted that there is sufficient population residing at Shamti. He has also admitted that there is a Thakur Dhaba ahead of Temple, and the distance of the Temple from Shamti is about 300 meters. 33. Having considered the ocular evidence of Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 (PW-1) and the Investigating Officer HC 30 Ambi Lal No.90 (PW-8), it can be inferred that the accused was allegedly apprehended at a place near Kali Mata Temple having residential houses, shops, and dhaba in the near vicinity. Since the time of apprehension of the accused is 9:00 PM in the month of March, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the apprehension was at odd hours during the night time preventing the Investigating Officer from associating independent witnesses from nearby vicinity. Furthermore, it is also evident that no official witness of the raiding party was sent to look for independent witnesses, clearly indicating the intention of the Investigating Officer to search the accused only in the presence of official witnesses. Therefore, non-association of the independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer is not well explained and appears to be deliberate. Therefore, its benefit is to be given to the defence. 34. The presence of Constable Pawan Kumar No.668 (PW-1) is also under suspicion in view of his evidence as he is unaware of the shops and residential premises near the vicinity and on the way to the spot. The aforesaid facts can be clearly inferred after going through his cross-examination. 31 35. The Investigating Officer HC Ambi Lal No.90 (PW-8) has also contradicted the contents of the spot map Ex.PW8/C, wherein the Kali Mata Temple is shown on the left hand side while going from Solan to Rajgarh, whereas, as per his version, the Temple falls on the right side. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the statement of the Investigating Officer and the spot map Ex.PW-8/C regarding the location of the Kali Mata Temple. Apart from this there are also inconsistencies in the evidence of the official witnesses regarding the number of vehicle checked and challaned during the course of patrolling while moving from SIU Office towards Shamti before reaching the spot. 36. Having considered the aforesaid facts and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support thereof, which is beset with contradictions and discrepancies cast a serious doubt as to veracity of the allegations and accusations against the accused qua recovery of the contraband from his exclusive and conscious possession on 08.03.2013 at 9:30 PM near Kali Mata Temple, Shamti, Solan District Solan, H.P. 32 37. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the material on record in the right perspective and this Court does not find any cogent reasons to defer with the learned Trial Court. 38. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and it is dismissed. 39. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellants on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 40. 40. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. 33 41. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Bhupesh Sharma) Judge 23 rd September, 2026 (Kiran)