Appellate Court Cannot Interfere With Findings Of Acquittal Unless It Finds That The View Taken By Trial Court Is Impossible Or Perverse: Himachal Pradesh HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.
The trial court had acquitted a woman charged with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after they held that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not convincing, reliable or cogent enough to meet the required standard of proof.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed, “Unless it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the findings of acquittal.”
Sr. AAG I.N. Mehta represented the applicant.
When the police officials of a Special Investigation Unit were on patrol duty, they received secret information that a Nepali woman was involved in the illicit trade of Charas in her tea stall. A search was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses where 142 grams of Charas and one electronic weighing scale were recovered. The contraband was seized and after its chemical analysis, the laboratory report confirmed the substance to be Charas.
The trial court took note of the discrepancies and contradictions which emerged from depositions made by the independent witnesses.
The High Court agreed with the view taken by the trial court as the material on record cast doubt on the prosecution's story.
The Court noted, “Independent witnesses associated by the Investigating Officer have made depositions which are contradictory and inconsistent with the prosecution case. Both the independent witnesses have substantially differed not only from the prosecution case but from each other also. This is a valid reason for doubting the prosecution story.”
The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence on record which proved the charges against the woman and “exclusive domain of the respondent was not established either over the shop or the tin box from which the contraband was recovered.”
The Court discussed that the Supreme Court in various judgments has clearly explained the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court's referencing certain judgments and noted that it only relied on the Head Notes without discussing the facts or ratio of judgments. The Court directed the Registrar General to circulate its judgment to all Judicial Officers in the State, to refer to the correct way of citing and relying on judicial precedents.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: State of H.P. v. Laxmi (2024:HHC:114)
