Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1087 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-08-19

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Special Judge Mandi HP in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007 titled State Vs. Anil Kumar decided on dated 4.1.2008. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 19.10.2008 at about 10 AM at place Bindravani just 300 metres before Check Post accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 1 Kg. and 500 grams of charas. It is alleged by prosecution that when the accused saw the police officials he started moving backward and was chased and was caught hold by ASI Bhim Sain. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused was in possession of bag Ext.P4 in which two poly bags Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 containing charas Ext.P7 recovered. It is further alleged by prosecution that charas was weighed and same was in shape of sticks and coins and on weighment charas was found 1.500Kgs. It is also alleged by prosecution that two samples of 25 grams each separated and remaining charas was sealed in a parcel. It is further alleged by prosecution that NCB from Ext.PM in triplicate was filled up and specimen seal ‘Y’ was also took on a piece of cloth and seal after use was handed over to HHC Thakur Singh and same was took into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PE. It is further alleged by prosecution that copy of recovery memo was supplied to accused free of cost and accused signed the same as token of receiving copy. It is further alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext.PL was registered and site plan Ext.PO was prepared. It is also alleged by prosecution that grounds of arrest were communicated to accused vide memo Ext.PD. It is further alleged that thereafter case property was produced before SHO Karam Singh along with NCB form and specimen seal and case property was resealed by SHO Karam Singh with seal ‘K’. It is further alleged that SHO also took the specimen seal on NCB form and on piece of cloth. It is further alleged that out of two samples one sample was sent to CFSL Chandigarh along with NCB form vide R.C. No. 189/06 through C. Amar Singh. It is further alleged that special report was sent to S.P. Mandi. It is further alleged that SHO also took the specimen seal on NCB form and on piece of cloth. It is further alleged that out of two samples one sample was sent to CFSL Chandigarh along with NCB form vide R.C. No. 189/06 through C. Amar Singh. It is further alleged that special report was sent to S.P. Mandi. It is also alleged by prosecution that as per report of the Chemical Examiner the contraband was charas. 3. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case and accused examined himself in defence :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 HHC Thakur Singh PW2 Retd. SI Nand Lal PW3 HHC Nand Lal PW4 C. Amar Singh PW5 L.C. Shakuntla Devi PW6 HHC Ghikham Singh PW7 ASI Karam Singh PW8 ASI Bhim Sain PW9 Rajesh Kumar DW1 Anil Kumar (accused) 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ext.PA Seal impression Ext.PB Rukka Ext.PC Search memo Ex.PD Arrest information Ex.PE Recovery memo of charas Ex.PF Special report Ex.PG Affidavit Ex.PH Abstract of Malkhana register Ex.PJ Road certificate Ex.PK Roznamcha Ex.PL Copy of FIR Ex.PM NCB Form Ex.PO Site plan Ex.PP Report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PP/1 Letter Ex.P1 to Ext.P3 Parcels Ex.P4 Carry bag Ex.P5 and Ext.P6 Polythene bags Ex.P7 Charas 5. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Special Judge Mandi convicted the appellant under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac). Learned Special Judge Mandi further directed that in default of payment of fine the appellant would further undergo to imprisonment for one year. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court appellant filed present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 7. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice to the appellant. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION : 9.1. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice to the appellant. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION : 9.1. PW1 HHC Thakur Singh has stated that he is posted as HHC in P.S. Sadar Mandi since 2005. He has stated that on dated 19.10.2006 he along with ASI Bhim Sen, HHC Het Ram were on routine duty towards Bindravani side and at about 10 AM when the police party was 300 meter before P.P. Brindavani at lonely place then a lame person was coming from opposite side who was carrying a polythene bag in his right hand. He has stated that when he saw the police party he turned back swiftly but police party chased him on ground of suspicion and ASI Bhim Sen caught hold the accused who on inquiry disclosed his name as Anil Kumar. He identified the accused in Court. He has stated that police officials inquired from accused regarding articles which were carried in the polythene bag. He has stated that accused could not give satisfactory reply and became nervous. He has further stated that it was lonely place as such no independent witness could be joined. He has stated that thereafter ASI Bhim Sen in his presence and in presence of HHC Het Ram searched the polythene bag and charas in the shape of sticks and chapattis was found. He has stated that recovered charas was mixed by ASI Bhim Sen and thereafter the same was weighed in the scale and weight scale was already with the police. He has also stated that on weighment charas was found 1.500 Kg. He has stated that thereafter I.O. separated two samples of charas and put them in two separate parcels which were sealed with seal ‘Y’ at four places each and remaining charas was put in same envelope and then sealed in parcel which was duly sealed with seal ‘Y’ at four places. He has stated that thereafter NCB form was filled up and I.O. also obtained specimen seal on a piece of cloth. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to him but he has lost the seal. He has stated that thereafter NCB form was filled up and I.O. also obtained specimen seal on a piece of cloth. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to him but he has lost the seal. He has stated that thereafter he took rukka to P.S. Sadar Mandi and handed over the same to SHO and on the basis of rukka MHC registered FIR. He has stated that personal search of accused was also obtained vide memo Ext.PC which bears his signatures and that of signature of Het Ram. He has stated that memo regarding grounds of arrest was given to accused and recovery of charas was took into possession vide memo Ext.PE which bears his signatures. He has stated that charas was recovered from the possession of accused. He has denied suggestion that accused alighted from the bus and he was took to police station directly. He has denied suggestion that nothing was done at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that office of truck union and trucks were visible to naked eye from the place of recovery. He has admitted that about 100 trucks are normally parked near the truck union. He has denied suggestion that there is a shop and house towards Mandi side at a distance of 100meters from the spot. He has stated that NCB form was filled in his presence. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the accused and also denied suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in present case. He has also denied suggestion that charas was lying abandoned in the bus. 9.2 PW2 Retd. SI Nand Lal has stated that in the year 2006 he was posted as Reader to Dy.S.P. Mandi and on dated 20.10.2006 special report of this case was received by Mr.M.Chander Sekhar S.P. Mandi who made endorsement on the same and thereafter handed over the same to him. He has further stated that special report is Ext.PF and same is correct as per original record. He has stated that thereafter special report was registered in register at Sr. No. 11 on dated 20.10.2006 at 11.10 AM and he also made endorsement on the special report. He has also stated that he is familiar with hand writing of S.P. as he had worked under him. He has stated that affidavit of S.P. Mr. He has stated that thereafter special report was registered in register at Sr. No. 11 on dated 20.10.2006 at 11.10 AM and he also made endorsement on the special report. He has also stated that he is familiar with hand writing of S.P. as he had worked under him. He has stated that affidavit of S.P. Mr. M. Chander Sekhar is Ext.PG which bears his signatures. 9.3 PW3 HHC Nand Lal has stated that he is posted as MHC in P.S. Sadar Mandi since 2005. He has brought the original malkhana register, R.C. No. 189/06 and FIR register of P.S. Sadar Mandi. He has stated that ASI Karam Singh on dated 19.10.2006 deposited with him three sealed parcels duly sealed with seal ‘Y’ and resealed with seal ‘K’ at four places containing charas. He has stated that NCB form also deposited. He has stated that he entered the case property in Malkhana register against Sr. No. 1175 copy of which is Ext.PH and same is correct as per original. He has further stated that he sent one sealed sample parcel of charas through Amar Singh No. 352 on dated 24.10.2006 along with sample seal vide R.C. No. 189/06 copy of which is Ext.PJ. He has stated that receipt was given by CFSL Chandigarh which is Ext.PJ/2. He has stated that case property remained intact and nobody tampered with case property. He has stated that case property which was handed over to him was duly entered in the register. 9.4 PW4 C. Amar Singh has stated that he is posted in P.S. Sadar Mandi since year 2005 and on dated 24.10.2006 HHC Nand Lal handed over to him one sealed sample of charas Ext.P1 along with docket, NCB form, specimen seal Y and K etc which he took to CFSL Chandigarh vide RC No. 189/06 dated 24.10.2006. He has stated that above stated case property was not accepted by officials of CFSL Chandigarh as some objections were raised and thereafter SHO removed objections and he again went to CFSL Chandigarh on dated 27.10.2006 and deposited the same on the same day. He has further stated that on his return he handed over R.C. to HHC Nand Lal. He has stated that R.C. Ext.PJ bears his signatures. He has stated that he also seen the endorsement made by SHO and receipt given by Laboratory is Ext.PJ/1 and Ext.PJ/2. He has further stated that on his return he handed over R.C. to HHC Nand Lal. He has stated that R.C. Ext.PJ bears his signatures. He has stated that he also seen the endorsement made by SHO and receipt given by Laboratory is Ext.PJ/1 and Ext.PJ/2. He has stated that so long the case property remained in his custody the same was not tampered. He has stated that objections raised by office of CFSL Chandigarh were verbally and were not given in writing. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 9.5 PW5 L.C. Shakuntla Devi has stated that in the year 2006 she was posted as Constable on generally duty in P.S. Sadar Mandi and has stated that on dated 20.10.2006 special report of this case was written by ASI Bhim Sen, copy of which is Ext.PF which she took to S.P. Office Mandi and produced it to M. Chander Sekhar S.P. Mandi at 11 AM. 9.6 PW6 HHC Ghikham Singh has stated that in the year 2006 he was posted as M.C. in P.S. Sadar Mandi and he prepared copy of D.D. No. 5 dated 19.10.2006 which is Ext.PK and is correct as per original record. 9.7 PW7 ASI Karam Singh has stated that he is posted as ASI in P.S. Sadar Mandi since 2005 and on dated 19.10.2006 he received rukka Ext.PB on the basis of which he recorded FIR Ext.PL which is signed by him. He has stated that he also made endorsement in rukka and then sent case file through HHC Thakur Singh No. 336 to I.O. He has stated that on the same day at 2.30 PM I.O. ASI Bhim Sain produced accused Anil Kumar present in Court along with case property which was sealed with seal ‘Y’ along with specimen seal and NCB form Ext.PM. He has stated that he resealed all three sealed packets with his own seal ‘K’ and specimen of reseal was also obtained by him on NCB form and he made entry regarding resealing on the said form and thereafter case property along with specimen seals ‘Y’ and ‘K’ deposited with MHC. He has stated that parcels Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 and bulk sealed parcel Ext.P3 are the same which were sealed with seal ‘Y’ and resealed with seal ‘K’. He has stated that parcels Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 and bulk sealed parcel Ext.P3 are the same which were sealed with seal ‘Y’ and resealed with seal ‘K’. He has stated that he does not remember whether he used his own pen while making entries of column of 9 to 11 of Ext.PM. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely with regard to NCB from. 9.8 PW8 ASI Bhim Sain has stated that he is posted as ASI in P.S. Sadar Mandi since 2005. He has stated that he along with HHC Thakur Singh No. 326, HHC Het Ram No. 436 left police station Sadar Mandi at 8.30 am on dated 19.10.2006 as per entry made in D.D. No. 5 copy of which is Ext.PK. He has stated that police party left towards Bindravani side and when reached 300 meters short of Bindravani Check Post then a lame person was noticed coming from opposite side carrying polythene bag in his hand coming towards Mandi side. He has stated that accused when saw the police party he started moving backward and thereafter he was chased on ground of suspicion and was caught. He has stated that accused disclosed his name Anil Kumar @ Pappu and he identified the accused in Court. He has stated that accused could not give any satisfactory reply and he became nervous. He has stated that he formally checked the bag which was carried by accused in presence of HHC Thakur Singh and HHC Het Ram. He has stated that on opening the said bag two polythene bags containing charas in the shape of sticks and coins were recovered. He has stated that thereafter charas recovered was mixed and same was weighed with scale and weights and same was found 1.500 Kg. He has stated that he separated two samples of 20 grams each from the recovered charas and remaining charas was put in same polythene bag and was sealed. He has stated that he filled NCB form in triplicate at the spot and specimen of seal was obtained on a piece of cloth and seizure memo of charas Ext.PE was prepared. He has stated that thereafter he prepared rukka and sent the same through C. Thakur Singh to P.S. Sadar Mandi. He has stated that report of Chemical Examiner is Ext.PP and letter is Ext.PP/1. He has stated that thereafter he prepared rukka and sent the same through C. Thakur Singh to P.S. Sadar Mandi. He has stated that report of Chemical Examiner is Ext.PP and letter is Ext.PP/1. He has stated that after completion of investigation he handed over the challan to Inspector Rajesh Kumar. He has denied suggestion that accused was travelling in the bus and was falsely implicated in present case. He has denied suggestion that tickets of accused were torn and also denied suggestion that accused was directly brought to P.S. Sadar Mandi. He has stated that he did not depute any police official to bring independent witness. He has denied suggestion that several persons passed on the spot on foot during the period police party remained on the spot. He has denied suggestion that there are many houses nearby the spot. 9.9 PW9 Rajesh Kumar Inspector has stated that he is posted as SHO P.S. Sadar Mandi since September 2006. He has stated that after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner Ext.PP and Ext.PP/1 he prepared challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after perusal of all documents and statements and presented the same in Court. 10. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that on the day of incident he was travelling in HRTC bus from Kullu to Chandigarh. He has stated that HRTC bus was stopped at Bindravani. He has stated that 5/6 passengers were traveling in the bus who were local. He has stated that bag was found below the seats of bus and he has stated that no one claimed ownership of bag. He has stated that police lifted the bag and inquired from all passengers of the bus about ownership of bag. He has stated that all passengers refused the ownership of bag and thereafter he was directed by police officials to board down from the bus and thereafter he was brought to police station Sadar Mandi and his signatures were obtained. He has further stated that false case has been filed against him. He has stated that independent witnesses were available but police officials did not associate them in proceedings. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in present case. 11. He has further stated that false case has been filed against him. He has stated that independent witnesses were available but police officials did not associate them in proceedings. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in present case. 11. Accused appeared himself as defence witness and stated that on dated 19.10.2006 at about 10/11 AM he was travelling in HRTC bus which was on way from Chandigarh to Kullu. He has stated that bus was stopped by police officials at Bindravani for routine check up. He has stated that thereafter police found unclaimed bag in bus. He has stated that he was not carrying any bag with him. He has further stated that there were 8/9 passengers in the bus and others passengers did not claim the ownership of bag. He has stated that when everybody disowned the said bag the police foisted the recovery of said bag upon him as he was the only outsider passenger in the bus. He has stated that he was sitting in the middle of bus. He has further stated that he was boarded down from the bus by police officials and thereafter he was directly brought to police station and his signatures were obtained on documents in police station. He has stated that he was brought in a tempo by police officials from Bindravani to police station and there were other shops at the spot and police did not associate any independent witness. He has stated that he stayed in night at Kullu hotel. He has denied suggestion that on dated 19.10.2006 he was caught by police party headed by ASI Bhim Sain when he was carrying a poly bag in his hand. He has denied suggestion that spot was a lonely place. He has denied suggestion that charas was recovered from his possession. He has denied suggestion that charas was weighed and was found 1.500 Kg. He has denied suggestion that two parcels of 25 grams each were separated and put in separate parcels with seal. He has denied suggestion that remaining bulk of charas was placed in the same bag and sealed in parcel. He has denied suggestion that charas was took into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PE. He has admitted his signatures on recovery memo. He has also admitted his signatures on arrest memo Ext.PD. He has denied suggestion that remaining bulk of charas was placed in the same bag and sealed in parcel. He has denied suggestion that charas was took into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PE. He has admitted his signatures on recovery memo. He has also admitted his signatures on arrest memo Ext.PD. He has denied suggestion that all proceedings were conducted by police officials at the spot. He has stated that he has no enmity with police officials. Eye witness proved the recovery of charas from possession of accused beyond reasonable doubt 12. PW1 HHC Thakur Singh and PW8 ASI Bhim Sain who were eye witnesses of incident have specifically stated that 1.500 Kg. of charas was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused in their presence. Testimonies of PW1 HHC Thakur Singh and PW8 ASI Bhim Sain are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 HHC Thakur Singh and PW8 ASI Bhim Sain. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW1 HHC Thakur Singh and PW8 ASI Bhim Sain have hostile animus against the accused prior to the incident or after the incident. Case proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt as per corroborative oral evidence 13. PW2 Retd. SI Nand Lal has proved the special report. He was posted as Reader to Dy.S.P. Mandi and he has stated that special report of the case was received by M. Chander Sekhar the then S.P. Mandi who made his endorsement on the same and thereafter handed over to him. PW3 HHC Nand Lal another corroborative witness has proved that case property was deposited with him along with NCB form. PW4 Amar Singh another link witness has also proved that he took the sample of charas along with NCB form and specimen seals ‘Y’ and ‘K’ to the office of CFSL Chandigarh vide R.C. No. 189 of 2006. PW5 LC Shakuntla Devi another witness has stated that special report Ext.PF was handed over by her in office of S.P. Mandi. PW6 HHC Ghikhan Singh has stated that he prepared copy of D.D. No. 5 dated 19.10.2006. PW7 ASI Karam Singh another link witness has stated that he resealed the case property and deposited the case property with MHC. PW5 LC Shakuntla Devi another witness has stated that special report Ext.PF was handed over by her in office of S.P. Mandi. PW6 HHC Ghikhan Singh has stated that he prepared copy of D.D. No. 5 dated 19.10.2006. PW7 ASI Karam Singh another link witness has stated that he resealed the case property and deposited the case property with MHC. PW9 Rajesh Kumar another corroborative witness has stated that after perusal of all oral as well as documentary evidence he prepared challan and submitted in Court. Testimonies of corroborative witnesses namely PW2 SI Nand Lal, PW3 HHC Nand Lal, PW4 C. Amar Singh, PW5 LC Shakuntla Devi, PW6 HHC Ghikham Singh and PW9 Inspector Rajesh Kumar are also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of corroborative witnesses. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that corroborative witnesses have hostile animus against the accused at any point of time prior to the incident or after the incident. Case proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of documentary evidence 14. Recovery of charas 1.500 Kg. is proved by way of documentary evidence i.e. recovery memo Ext.PE and contents of recovery memo Ext.PE proved on record by way of testimonies of HHC Thakur Singh and ASI Bhim Sain. Document Ext.PD qua information of arrest under Section 52 of ND&PS Act was also proved on record by way of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Seals impressions obtained on plain cloth, special report Ext.PF, affidavit of the then SP Mr. M.Chandra Sekhar Ext.PG, extract of Malkhana register Ext.PH, roznamcha Ext.PJ, Rukka Ext.PB, memo of personal search Ext.PC, rapat roznamcha No. 5 Ext.PK, FIR Ext.PL, NCB form Ext.PM, site plan Ext.PO are also proved as per testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Report of CFSL Chandigarh Ext.PP is also proved beyond reasonable doubt in present case. As per report Ext.PP after various laboratory tests such as chemical test and chromatographic analysis, microscopy test prove that Ext.A1 is sample of charas. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the fact that I.O. was already carrying weight and measure along with other articles to the spot clearly proves that present case is on the basis of prior information is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the fact that I.O. was already carrying weight and measure along with other articles to the spot clearly proves that present case is on the basis of prior information is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that I.O. has prior information of charas. On the contrary it is proved on record that it was a chance recovery of contraband from possession of accused when accused tried to run back when he saw the police officials and on suspicion the accused was apprehended and search was conducted and charas was recovered. Hence it is held that present case was not a case of prior information but was a case of chance recovery only. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that Investigating Officer did not even care to explore the possibility of obtaining the assistance of independent witnesses from the near vicinity of the alleged occurrence and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is evidence on record that place was lonely place. There is positive evidence on record that it was a chance recovery. It is well settled law that in chance recovery procurement of independent witness is not essential. It is well settled law that procurement of independent witness is essential only when there is prior information. In present case there is no positive cogent and reliable evidence that there was prior information regarding possession of contraband. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that case property i.e. sample of alleged recovered charas and documents along with sample of seal were not accepted by CFSL Chandigarh, when they were sent through C. Amar Singh on dated 24.10.2006 and C. Amar Singh brought back the case property to police station which were again sent to CFSL Chandigarh on dated 27.10.2006 through C. Amar Singh and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that any fact can be proved by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence. It is well settled law that any fact can be proved by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence. It is proved on record by way of oral evidence that case property which was brought back from CFSL Chandigarh to Malkhana was kept in safe custody. There is no evidence on record that case property was not kept in Malkhana in safe custody and there is no evidence on record in order to prove that case property was tampered with. The plea of appellant that case property was tampered when the same was brought to Malkhana after objection raised by office of CFSL Chandigarh is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that case property was not resealed by SHO in police station is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW7 ASI Karam Singh has specifically stated that he resealed all parcels and case property. Testimony of PW7 ASI Karam Singh that he resealed all parcels and case property remains unrebutted on record. Testimony of PW7 that he resealed all three parcels with his own seal ‘K’ is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW7 ASI Karam Singh that he resealed the case property with his own seal ‘K’. Even in NCB form it is specifically mentioned that case property was resealed by ASI/SHO Karam Singh with his own seal ‘K’ on dated 19.10.2006 at 2.50 PM. Resealing certificate given by ASI/SHO Karam Singh upon NCB form remains unrebutted on record. Hence it is held that case property was resealed in accordance with law. Factum of resealing is proved by testimony of ASI/SHO Karam Singh. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Court did not appreciate testimony of defence witness is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused did not examine any independent witness in order to prove his case. Accused did not examine any independent passenger who was travelling in bus in order to prove that charas was not recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. Accused also did not examine driver and conductor of bus in order to prove that no charas was recovered from his possession. Accused did not examine any independent passenger who was travelling in bus in order to prove that charas was not recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. Accused also did not examine driver and conductor of bus in order to prove that no charas was recovered from his possession. Sole testimony of accused who appeared as DW1 is not sufficient to rebut the testimonies of PWs 1 to 9 in present case in view of presumption of culpable mental state as per Section 35 of ND&PC Act 1985. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that conviction cannot be given in present case simply on testimonies of police officials is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 2783 titled Nathu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that mere fact that witnesses examined in support of the prosecution case were the police officials was not strong enough to discard their evidence. (See: AIR 1985 SC 1092 titled State of Gujarat vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi; See (1996)3 SCC 338 titled Tahir vs. State (Delhi); See: (2012)4 SCC 722 titled Govindraju alias Govinda vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another; See: (2007)15 SCC 760 titled Tika Ram vs. State of M.P.; See: (2007)7 SCC 625 Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P.) 21. Another submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that there is material contradiction in testimonies of police witnesses and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not point any material contradiction which goes to the root of the case between testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution case. In present case it is proved on record that charas was recovered from accused on dated 19.10.2006 and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on dated 20.8.2007, 21.8.2007 after a gap of ten months. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Naduthat if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Naduthat if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. It was further held that an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution’s witness. It was held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in statements of witnesses when testimony of witness is recorded after a gape of time. (See: AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, See: AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony; See: AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash; See: (2009)11 SCC 588 titled Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2009)9 SCC 626 titled State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others; See: AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; See: (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another; See: (2004) 10 SCC 94 titled Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others; See: (2012)10 SCC 433 Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan) It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. State of Kerala that conviction can be sustained in a criminal case upon the sole testimony of a single witness if testimony of witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. (See: AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, See: AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras). 22. In view of above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and it is held that no miscarriage of justice has been caused to the appellant. It is also held that judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court are in accordance with proved facts and are in accordance with law. Hence present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.