2026:HHC:11878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 and 212 of

2009

Reserved on: 2.4.2026

Date of decision: 17.4. 2026

1.Cr. Appeal No. 210 of 2009

Dula Ram …Appellant.

Versus

State of H.P. …Respondent.

2.Cr. Appeal No. 212 of 2009

Angrego Devi ...Appellant.

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent.

Corum

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes

For the Appellant(s). Mr.Manoj Pathak and Mr.Parth Sagar,

Advocates, for the appellant in Cr. Appeal

No. 210 of 2009.

Mr.Ayush Chauhan, Advocate (Legal Aid

Counsel) for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No.

212 of 2009

For the Respondent: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Appellants, in both these appeals, have preferred these

appeals against common judgment dated 27.5.2009 passed by Special

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

2 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

Judge-II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 2-N/7 of 2008,

titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dula Ram and Another, in case FIR

No. 365/2007, dated 30.10.2007, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib,

District Sirmour, H.P. under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropics Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), whereby appellants,

who are co-convict have been convicted for commission of offence

punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and have been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of

1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple

₹

imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

2. Both these appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed

by co-ordinate Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated

15

th

December, 2009, mainly on the ground that report Ex. PW-17/E of

chemical examiner, in view of judgment passed by this High Court in Rajiv

Kumar alias Guglu Vs. State of H.P., HLJ 2008 (HP) 247, was not

considered to be a conclusive report to prove that contraband alleged to be

recovered from the appellants was poppy straw/opium poppy. It is apt to

record that on similar lines in another judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed in

Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo and others Vs. State of H.P. for similar grounds,

accused Nirmal Kaur and others were acquitted by the Trial Court by

referring the reasons in consonance with Rajiv Kumar’s case.

3 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

3. The aforesaid judgment in Nirmal Kaur’s case was assailed by

the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing Cr. Appeal No. 956 of 2012, which

was decided on 20.10.2022 and judgment of acquittal passed by this High

court was set aside and matter was remanded for deciding afresh in

accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Himachal

Pradesh Vs. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo and others, 2022 (15) Scale 347.

4. In present appeals, respondent-State preferred Cr. Appeal No.

958 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dula Ram and Cr.

Appeal No. 959 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Angrejo

Devi, before the Supreme Court, against acquittal of appellants vide

judgment dated 15

th

December, 2009 passed by co-ordinate Division Bench

of this Court, which was heard and decided by the Apex Court vide order

dated 23.11.2022, in the following terms:-

“1.Leave granted in SLP (Crl) No. 761/2014.

2. The High Court basically allowed the appeals on the ground that

the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized material is not the

genesis of a plant of Papaver somniferum L or any other plant, which is

notified by the Central Government under Section 2(xvii) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

3. On a reference, this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal

Kaur alias Nimmo and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1462,

has decided the issue and it has been held that once it is found that the

seized material contain ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ it is sufficient to

establish that the seized material comes within the definition of Section

2(xvii) of the NDPS Act.

4. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgments and orders

are quashed and set aside and the cases are remitted back to the High

4 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

Court to consider the same afresh, in accordance with the judgment of

this Court rendered in Nirmal Kaur alias Nimmo and Others (supra).

5. The sentence imposed on the respondents herein are suspended

till the High Court decides the matters on merits.

6. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

5. In aforesaid facts, these appeals has to be decided once

again, by keeping in view the law laid by the Supreme Court.

6. As per prosecution story on 30.10.2007, Police party headed

by PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore, consisting of PW-3 HC Partap Singh,

PW-4 HC. Rattan Singh, PW-5 Constable Dhanveer Singh and PW-8

Constable Deepak Kumar was on patrolling and at that time PW-17

Narveer Singh Rathore, Investigating Officer received an secret information

that respondents are involved in business of narcotic drugs. After

receiving the aforesaid information PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore prepared

information in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and after joining

two independent witnesses PW-1 Harpal Singh and PW-2 Gulsher, search

of the house of Angrejo Devi was conducted. Angrejo Devi and Dula Ram

were found in the house and in their presence 16 bags of contraband were

recovered from the house. After seizure, rukka was sent by Investigating

Officer PW-17 Narrveer Singh Rathore to Police Station, Panta Sahib

through constable Deep Ram, who came back and handed over the case

file to Investigating Officer on the spot and after finding sufficient material

against the appellants, they were arrested and brought to the Police

5 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

Station. Two samples each were drawn from each plastic bag and

thereafter 16 plastic bags were sealed separately and 32 samples were

also sealed with seal impression ‘T’. On 31.10.2007 case property was

handed over to PW-6 ASI Raghuvir Singh. Vide RC No. 134/07 dated

31.10.2007 samples of contraband alongwith other relevant documents

were sent to FSL through PW-7 HHC Partap Singh.

7. After completion of investigation, SHO Narveer Singh

presented the challan in the Court.

8. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses,

whereas after recording statement of accused persons under Section 313

Cr.P.C., no evidence was lead in defence. After completion of trial

appellants were convicted. Both appellants preferred separate appeals i.e.

present appeals bearing Cr. Appeal No. 210 of 2009 and Cr. Appeal No.

212 of 2009.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there

are sufficient material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of

Police witnesses, warranting acquittal of both accused. Even otherwise by

ignoring the judgment passed by this Court in Rajeev Kumar’s case and

considering ration of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of

Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo and others, reported in

2022 (15) Scale 347, appellants deserves to be acquitted. Learned

counsel for the appellants have submitted that respondents-State has failed

6 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, respondents are

entitled to be acquitted.

10. PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore is Investigating Officer, was

SHO in the Police Station, Paonta Sahib at the relevant point of time.

According to him at about 8:50 P.M., he received a secret information that

Dula Ram resident of Shilai had kept huge quantity of poppy straw in the

house of appellant Angrejo Devi. Whereupon he prepared information

Ex.PW-5/A, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and send the same

through PW-5 Constable Dhanveer Singh to SDPO seeking authorization

from the SDPO for conducting search of the house of Angrejo Devi.

Constable Dhanveer Singh came back about 9:50 P.M. alongwith

authorization. According to prosecution case Angrejo Devi and Dula Ram

were present in the house. They were informed about intention of the

Police party to search the house on the basis of secret information received

by PW-17 Narveer Singh Tarhore. Both appellants consented for search of

house by the Police. In this regard consent memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex.

PW-1/C were prepared. Photographer PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed was also

called on the spot, who took photographs of the entire incident.

11. PW-1 Harpal Singh and PW-2 Gulsher are independent

witnesses.

7 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

12. PW-3 HC Partap Singh, PW-4 HC Rattan Singh, PW-5

Constable Dhanveer Singh, PW-8 Constable Deepak Kumar and PW-17

Dy.SP Narveer Singh Rathore are spot witnesses.

13. PW-1 Harpal Singh and PW-2 Gulsher did not support the

prosecution story and nothing could be extracted from them favourable to

the prosecution, even after their cross-examination by learned Public

Prosecutor, after taking permission from the Court.

14. PW-1 Harpal Singh has stated that on 30.10.2007, he was

sleeping in his house near to his flour mill and Police asked him to weigh

some material and accordingly Police weighed 16 plastic bags in his shop.

He has admitted signatures on recovery memo and other documents, with

explanation that he and PW-2 Gulsher were taken to the Police Station and

thereafter were brought to the spot of alleged recovery. This witness has

denied the prosecution case in toto, except admitting his signatures on

various memos. He has expressed his ignorance about the fact that Dula

Ram was tenant of Angrejo Devi. According to him Police took

photographs in his Flour Mill when case property was being weighed. He

has also stated that at the time of taking photographs, accused were

present, with self explanation that Police came back from the Police

Station, Paonta Sahib alongwith photographer and thereafter by placing the

material in the room and in his Flour Mill, photographs were taken. He has

denied that photographer was taken in the room of Dula Ram at the time of

8 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

recovery. He has admitted his signatures on the samples as well as bag

containing the contraband. In cross-examination, he has admitted that

house of Chhota Ram, husband of Angrejo Devi is also at a distance of 20-

30 meters from his flour mill and he was sleeping, when Police called him

from his house, and when he came he found number of Police personnel

were present with a vehicle, which had some material and after weighing

the material, Police took him to Police Station Paonta Sahib and at that time

none of accused was present on the spot, and after 30-40 minutes Police

brought them again to the village. This witness has stated that he did not

know that by that time Police had called Dula Ram from his house and

there was one person who also accompanied the Police to village. Police

after reaching the village stopped in front of house of Chhota Ram and

called him. Chhota Ram was not found in the house, but his wife was there

and Police took photographs by reloading the bags in the house as well as

in the Aata Chaki and when Police left the village they directed him and

Gulsher to reach the Police Station during the day time and at that time

their signatures were obtained in the Police Station at about 2-3 P.M. on

31.10.2007. Village Taruwala is a distance of 3 kilometers. Accused

Angrejo was also taken to Police Station when photographs were taken.

15. PW-2 Gulsher has also deposed on similar lines, with

statement that he was associated by the Police in search of house of

Angrejo Devi, but nothing was recovered. In his cross-examination he has

9 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

narrated a similar story, as has been told by PW-1 Harpal Singh with

statement that he was called by the Police personnel during night. On

reaching the spot, he found that a loaded vehicle was parked near the flour

mill of Harpal Singh and Police weighed the material and took them to

Police Station Paonta Sahib and they remained there for about one hour

and then again were brought back to village. Vehicle was taken to the

Police Station. There was one person in the vehicle, but he did not talk with

him. After coming back to village Police placed the bags in flour mill and

thereafter photographs of the room as well as flour mill were taken by

placing the bags there. Police had asked Harpal Singh and him to come to

the Police Station next date at 11:00 A.M. in the morning and on that date

they signed papers in the Police Station.

16. The entire story of the prosecution is based upon secret

information received by PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore. According to him

he received the secret information at 8:50 P.M. In cross-examination PW-

17 Narveer Singh has stated that he received secret information from a

person who approached him at Bhugrani Chowk and at that time they were

patrolling at Bhugrani Chowk and were not sitting in the vehicle and all

Police officials were with him when he received the secret information. The

informer was only one person, who came from the field. He was neither

police informer nor known to him. 3-4 minutes were taken by the informer

to talk with him.

10 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

17. According to PW-3 H.C. Partap Singh, PW-17 Narveer Singh

Rathore received information on his personal mobile phone, when all of

them were standing at a road diversion from Bhugrani to Nihalgarh for the

last one hour. He could not tell the time consumed by the SHO for

recording the said information.

18. According to PW-4 HC Rattan Singh, SHO received

information at Bhugrani Nihalgarh diversion on his mobile phone. The

information was received when vehicle was moving towards Nihalgarh.

19. PW-5 constable Dhanveer Singh has stated that they stopped

for 5 to 7 minutes at Bhugrani Chowk and all of them alighted from the

vehicle, then SHO received information on his mobile at 8:50 P.M and

conservation of SHO took about 5 minutes. He did not hear conversion

between SHO and information on the mobile.

20. PW-8 Constable Deepak Kumar, who was also member of

Police party is completely silent, not only with regard to secret information,

but also further story of the prosecution, as he had stated that after

completion of search Investigating Officer handed over him one rukka Ex.

PW-8/A for registration of FIR and he took it to the Police Station and after

registration of FIR and making endorsement on rukka, handed over the

case file to SHO at Nihalgarh road. In cross-examination he has denied

that he was not with the Police party nor took rukka from Nihalgarh road to

11 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

Police Station. Other Police officials of the raiding party have not been

examined.

21. There is material contradictions with regard to mode and

manner of receiving secret information by PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore.

The Police officials who were traveling in the same vehicle, patrolling

together and sitting together, have given entirely different version about the

mode of receiving the secret information, which is irreconcilable.

22. According to PW-5 Constable Dhanveer Singh, secret

information was recorded under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and he was

handed over one envelop at Nihalgarh by SHO Narveer Singh Rathore and

he handed over the same to SDPO. Though, he has been claimed to be

member of raiding party, who witness the receipt of secret information by

PW-17, but he expressed his inability to tell that who was scriber of secret

information Ex. PW-5/A. According to him SDPO PW-11 Shubhra Tiwari

handed over a letter of authorization, which was delivered by him to PW-17

Narveer Singh Rathore on the spot whereas according to PW-17 Narveer

Singh Rathore, the authorization letter was a loose letter and was not in

envelop. According to PW-11, she had handed over the authorization letter

in an envelop to PW-5 Constable Dhanveer Singh. This is also a material

contradiction, because it is categoric stand of PW-5 Constable Dhanveer

Singh and PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore that authorization letter was

12 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

loose, but not in envelop, whereas according to PW-11, it was given in an

envelop.

23. PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore is SHO and PW-11 at that time

was SDPO (Dy.SP) and they are well aware about the protocol of handing

over the authorization letter, but discrepancy in this regard is irreconcilable.

24. It has also been rightly pointed out by learned counsel

appearing for the appellants that at the time of leading entire evidence

during trial, at the time of examination of witnesses, including Investigating

Officer, the bags Ex. P-33 to P-48 and samples Ex. P-1 to P-32, were never

opened and nothing has been recorded by the Trial Court at the time of

recording statements of witnesses that samples are Ex. P-1 to P-32 and

bags are Ex. P-33 to P-48, about the seals put thereon at the time of

recovery of contraband as well as on the samples which were submitted to

the chemical analysis about the seal put by the chemical laboratory.

During examination of prosecution witnesses these bags and samples were

never opened or nor their seals were checked. It has been submitted that

when the seals were not checked by the Court, there was no reason for the

accused persons to dispute that these bags cannot be linked with the

appellants, because it was for the prosecution to link and prove the

connection of the bags and samples drawn with the appellants.

25. It has also been stated by PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore that

both the accused were uneducated and they were not in a position to read

13 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

the contents of authorization letter and, therefore, he had narrated the

substance of authorization letter to them. Consent memos Ex. PW-1.B and

Ex. PW-1/C, alleged to be obtained by the Investigating Officer PW-17,

prior to searching the house of accused, is also creating doubt about the

veracity of the prosecution case. In these consent memos, it has been

recorded that (Dula Ram) in Ex. PW-1/B and Angrejo in Ex. PW-1/C, were

ready for search of the house. It is also noticeable that in both concent

memos, Investigating Officer asked for consent by giving option that search

can be conducted through some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

26. In Ex. PW-1/B, PW-17 Investigating Officer had put his

signatures, which appears that it had been inserted later on. But in Ex.

PW-1/C, he missed to do the same and there are no signatures of SHO

giving to appellant Angrejo Devi. Consent memo also gives impression that

Dula Ram and Angrejo Devi wrote these words and in case they were un-

educated and not known to write and read anything, then consent would

have been recorded as that ‘he’ or ‘she’ consented not as I consented. It is

also apt to record that in Dula Ram’s consent memo, instead of ‘He’ it has

been stated that consent has been recorded as ‘She’ by writing that “khana

talashi apko dana chahati hu”.

27. In Ex. PW-1/C even signatures of Angrejo are not below the

consent, but below the signatures of PW-1 Harpal and PW-2 Gulsher,

which also indicates that these documents were prepared later and

14 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

signatures thereon were taken at even thereafter at a later point of time, but

these documents were not prepared on the spot as claimed by the

prosecution.

28. PW-10 Ramesh Chand, who was owner of Pickup vehicle,

which was allegedly hired by accused Dula Ram for transporting material

from Tiuni to the house of Angrejo Devi. This witness has completely

denied the prosecution case by stating that Dula Ram did not hire his

vehicle to bring contraband from Tuni. He has admitted that his vehicle

was taken in possession by the Police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A, but

he has denied his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he

has not been cross-examined in this regard, except putting him statement

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

29. PW-9 Ram Swaroop has been examined to prove the

possession of house of Angrejo Devi and renting one room by her to Dula

Ram at the rate of 1,000/- per month. This witness also did not support

₹

the prosecution case and in cross-examination he denied the claim of the

prosecution. He has also denied recovery of contraband in presence of

Dula Ram and Angrejo Devi on 30.10.2007. According to him he had never

given any statement to the Police. In cross-examination on behalf of

appellants, this witness has stated that the house in which Angrejo Devi

reside is also shared by family of brother of husband of Angrejo Devi.

15 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

30. PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed is photographer, who was called by

the Police on the spot. In cross-examination he has stated that PW-17

Narveer Singh Rathore called him from his residence and took him to

village Nilahgarh and there were two Police vehicles on the spot. Dy.SP

Panta Sahib, who was lady Officer was also present on the spot. Dy.SP

Paonta Sahib, has been examined as PW-11. He has further stated that

Police placed the persons in the photographs at the points where they were

standing in the Atta Chaki and after one hour he went away, whereas

Dy.SP and Police people remained on the spot.

31. PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed has also corroborated PW-1 Harpal

Singh and PW-2 Gulsher that photographs on the spot were taken after

placing the bags and the persons after coming back from the Police Station.

This witness has also stated about presence of Dy.SP on the spot, but

Public Prosecutor has not re-examined this witness to disprove or question

this version of the witnesses. Originally it is not case of the prosecution that

Dy.SP came on the spot, rather in the entire story put forth by the

prosecution, PW-5 Constable Dhanveer Singh went to Dy.SP, who handed

over authorization letter in the envelop and Constable Dhanveer Singh

came back to Nihalgarh. There is no reference of coming of Dy.SP on the

spot, but the prosecution witness categorically stated so, which has not

been disputed by the prosecution.

16 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

32. PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore has stated that he did not

remember that brother of husband of Angrejo Devi was residing in the said

house with his family and he did not tried to find out that who was owner of

the house from which recovery of poppy husk was alleged.

33. PW-3 HC Partap Singh had stated that Dula Ram was

wearing only under garments and was sitting on a carpet in the house of

Angrejo Devi. Defence taken by the prosecution is that Dula Ram was

residing somewhere else near a school alongwith his family and he was

called to the Police Station when he was sleeping and he was not even

wearing the cloths and he was taken to the Police Station in under

garments, in which he was sleeping. PW-3 HC Partap Singh has admitted

about presence of Dula Ram, but with clarification that he was sitting in

under garments on a carpet in the house of Angrejo Devi. According to

PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore, Dula Ram and Angrejo Devi were found

standing in the house of Angrejo Devi in the verandah. According to PW-3

H.C. Pratap Singh, they were sitting on the carpet in the house whereas

according to PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore, they were standing in the

verandah. According to PW-3 HC Partap Singh Dula Ram was waring

under garments and according to PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore, he was

wearing full dress and not in undergarments. The statement of these two

witnesses are also irreconcilable.

17 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

34. It is also apt to record that PW-17 Narveer Singh Rathore has

stated that they checked only one room of the house of Angrejo Devi and

they did not check other rooms. Reasons given by him that other rooms

were open and were not bolted and one room was bolted and, therefore,

they searched the said room only, but did not search other rooms of the

house. According to him PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed photographer was called

on the spot, whereas according to PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed he was called in

the Police Station.

35. Though, it is a settled law that accused persons can be

convicted even if independent witnesses turn hostile and conviction can

also be based on the sole testimony of official witnesses, however, when

independent witnesses were associated and in the Court they put forth a

parallel story, which is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, a

doubt about the veracity of prosecution story arises. In present case, there

are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of

witnesses which goes against the genesis of the prosecution story, rather

demolishes the prosecution case on material particulars. The parallel story

narrated by the independent witnesses PW-1 Harpal Singh and PW-2

Gulsher found corroboration from other prosecution witnesses, especially

PW-9 Ram Swrop and PW-16 Gulsher Ahmed.

36. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that samples were

drawn on the spot and out of them 16 samples were sent to FSL, but at the

18 2026:HHC:11878

Cr. Appeal Nos. 210 & 212 of 2009

time of exhibiting and recording statements of witnesses, these parcels of

sample as well as remaining contraband were never physically checked

and, therefore, link to connect these exhibits with the appellants is missing

and, therefore, report of Chemical Examiner, even if considered to be

correct, is of no help to the prosecution.

37. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion

that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to

rebut the innocence of appellants by establishing prosecution case through

cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record.

38. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned

judgment of Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for

commission of offense under Section 15 of the NDPS Act is set aside. Bail

bonds, if any, furnished by them shall stand discharged.

The appeals stand disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also

pending applications, if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

Judge.

(Ranjan Sharma),

Judge.

17

th

April, 2026

(Keshav)