JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant-convict Tikkam Ram, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 21.2.2009, passed by Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal v. Tikkam Ram, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 11.1.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., when police party, comprising of ASI Brij Lal (PW-6), Constable Birbal Dass (PW-3) and Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-7), was on patrol duty at Shaluri Nallah, they saw the accused, coming on foot, carrying a bag (Pitthu) on his shoulder. Seeing the policy party, he became perplexed. On suspicion, he was overpowered. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Tikkam Ram. Since the place was secluded and on suspicion that accused may be carrying some contraband substance, Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-7) was sent to search for independent witnesses from the nearby area. Since the place was not inhabited, being a forest area, none other than the police officials, present on the spot, could be associated in the search operations. 3. Accused was then informed of his rights of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate/ police officials, who consented for being searched by the police party present on the spot, vide Memo (Ex. PA). Before carrying out search of the accused, police officials also gave their search. Upon search of the bag carried by the accused, one polythene packet containing contraband substance, which appeared to be charas, in the shape of balls, was recovered. Police party weighed the same, which turned out to be 2.5 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated and sealed with three seals bearing Mark ‘C’. Bulk charas was sealed in a parcel with six separate seals bearing the same mark. NCB form (Ex. PG), in triplicate, was filled up. 4. Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-7) took the Rukka to Police Station, Nirmand, where FIR No.11, dated 11.1.2007, under the provisions of Section 20.61.85 of the Act was registered. Bulk charas was sealed in a parcel with six separate seals bearing the same mark. NCB form (Ex. PG), in triplicate, was filled up. 4. Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-7) took the Rukka to Police Station, Nirmand, where FIR No.11, dated 11.1.2007, under the provisions of Section 20.61.85 of the Act was registered. PW-7 brought the file back to the spot and handed it over to ASI Brij Lal (PW-6). Necessary investigation was conducted on the spot; accused was arrested and informed of his rights. Special report was sent to Senior Police official, which was received in his Office by ASI Om Prakash (PW-1). The seized contraband substance was handed over to MHC Mohar Singh (PW-5). Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) (Ex. PH) was obtained through Constable Ramesh Chand (PW-4), which revealed that the contraband substance was in fact charas. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he not only took up a defence of false implication, but also examined three witnesses to prove that same day, at about 10.30 a.m., he was traveling in a vehicle from Arsu to Rampur; at that time he was drunk; when vehicle crossed the place where the police had set up a naka, they took him into custody and falsely implicated him in the instant case. 7. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and credible piece of evidence. Simply because no independent witness stands associated by the police, in itself, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. 9. Simply because no independent witness stands associated by the police, in itself, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. 9. It is a settled position of law that testimony of police officials is not liable to be discarded merely because it comes from them or is not corroborated by any independent witness. There cannot be any inherent infirmity in that regard. However, prudence only requires evidence of such officials needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated and their creditworthiness ascertained. (See: C. Ronald and another v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, (2011) 12 SCC 428 ; Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ; Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 ; and Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 589 ). 10. In the instant case, we find, as would emerge from the discussion herein after, that testimonies of police officials fully inspire confidence and apart from corroborating the version of each other, establishes the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt. 11. However, what first needs to be examined in the present case is as to whether defence taken by the accused stands probablized or not. According to Shri Keshav Thakur (DW-2), on 11.1.2007, he was travelling alongwith the accused in a vehicle (Bolero Camper) from Arsu to Rampur. At about 10.30 a.m., their vehicle was checked at Tikkari Kainchi. At that time, one Maruti Car was also being checked. Police Officials ascertained the names and identity of occupants of Bolero vehicle. Thereafter, they took the accused, who was drunk, out of the vehicle. At that time, he was not having any article with him. Thereafter, police made the accused sit in the vehicle. In cross-examination, he states that he does not even remember the number of the vehicle (Bolero). Though, he admits that owner and driver of the vehicle are alive, yet none has been produced. He does not even furnish their particulars. He has no proof of having travelled in the vehicle. He admits that when police allegedly took the accused, matter was not reported to any police official or Magistrate or Court. Why so? has not been explained. He admits that he is deposing on the asking of family of the accused. To our mind, testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence at all. He admits that when police allegedly took the accused, matter was not reported to any police official or Magistrate or Court. Why so? has not been explained. He admits that he is deposing on the asking of family of the accused. To our mind, testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence at all. Now, if accused had been wrongly and illegally taken away by the police, then why is it that none reported the matter to any one? He does not even disclose the purpose of his visit to Rampur. 12. Further to falsify the justification of non-association of independent witnesses by the prosecution, accused has, through the testimony of Shri Dalip Bazeer (DW-1) and Shri Prakash (DW-3), tried to prove that there were houses near the place where accused was apprehended. Impliedly, what is argued is that police party did not make any endeavour to associate any independent witness. 13. DW-1, who is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, “Kot”, states that his residence is at a distance of 600 metres from Shaluri Nallah. He states that there are houses of Balak Ram and Tula Ram on the road side at Shaluri Nallah and houses of Huma Singh and Daya Ram are towards Bagipul. Houses of Lal Dass and another person are at a distance of 100 metres. He states that it did not come to his knowledge that narcotic substance was recovered on 11.1.2007. On first brush, testimony of this witness, in examination-in-chief, appears to be inspiring in confidence. But however, when one closely scrutinizes cross-examination, one finds it is not so. He does not know length of Shaluri Nallah. He admits that his house is not on the road side. He admits to have deposed on the asking of the father of accused. He does not know as to whether police had set up any naka at Shaluri Nallah or not. He admits that in the early hours of morning, in the month of January, villagers normally remain inside and one does not know what is taking place outside. Testimony of this witness, to our mind, does not inspire confidence. He cannot be said to be a reliable witness. Shaluri Nallah does not fall within his Panchayat. His Panchayat is “Kot” and not “Arsu”. None of the persons, whom he named to be residing in and around Shaluri Nallah has come forward to depose such fact. Testimony of this witness, to our mind, does not inspire confidence. He cannot be said to be a reliable witness. Shaluri Nallah does not fall within his Panchayat. His Panchayat is “Kot” and not “Arsu”. None of the persons, whom he named to be residing in and around Shaluri Nallah has come forward to depose such fact. Also, there is no documentary evidence to this effect. Pradhan could have produced the record from the Panchayat. 14. Further, we find testimony of Shri Prakash (DW3) also does not inspire confidence, who states that his house is at a distance of about 300 metres from Shaluri Nallah. Significantly, he does not refer to any of the houses belonging to Shri Balak Ram, Shri Tula Ram at Shaluri Nallah, as is referred to by DW-1, though he states that houses of Shri Huma Singh and Shri Daya Ram are situated towards Bagipul, but then they are not at Shaluri Nallah. He refers to the houses of other persons, who have not been examined in Court. This witness even does not know that on 11.1.2007 accused was apprehended by the police with Charas. How and why has he came to depose in Court, has not been sufficiently explained. Significantly, he admits that Bagipul is 3-4 kms away from Shaluri Nallah. If that is so, then obviously version of PW-7 that he could not find any habitation along the road side, when he went to search for independent witnesses, inspires confidence. 15. Hence, from the aforesaid discussion, the defence of the accused cannot be said to have been probablized at all. 16. Coming to the prosecution witnesses, we find that version of ASI Brij Lal (PW-6) stands fully corroborated by PW-3 and PW-7. 17. PW-6 states that on 11.1.2007, he alongwith the other police officials were present at Shaluri Nallah, in connection with detection of crime and Nakabandi. At about 6.30 a.m., police party saw the accused coming on foot from Bagipul side. Accused, who was carrying a bag on his shoulder, became perplexed. On suspicion that he may be carrying some contraband substance, he was overpowered. He disclosed his name as Tikkam Ram. At that time, road was secluded. He sent PW-7 to search for independent witnesses, but without any success. Accused, who was carrying a bag on his shoulder, became perplexed. On suspicion that he may be carrying some contraband substance, he was overpowered. He disclosed his name as Tikkam Ram. At that time, road was secluded. He sent PW-7 to search for independent witnesses, but without any success. Accused was informed about the grounds of his search and his right of being searched before the Gazetted Officer/Magistrate or the Police Officials, who consented to be searched by the police party on the spot. Police officials first gave their search to the accused and thereafter accused was searched. No objectionable substance was found from the body of the accused. However, from the bag having label of “Adidas”, one polythene packet, bearing Mark “R.K. Boot House Lower Dhalpur, Kullu”, was recovered. The same was opened, from which contraband substance, in the shape of balls, was recovered. It was weighed and found to be 2.5 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated and sealed in separate parcels with three seals bearing Mark ‘C’. The bulk charas was also sealed in separate parcel with seal bearing Mark ‘C’. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled up. The NCB form alongwith the seal were handed over to Constable Birbal Dass (PW-3). Seizure Memo (Ex. PC) was prepared in the presence of PW-3 and PW-7. A copy thereof was supplied to the accused and his signatures obtained. Accused was informed about his rights, on his arrest. Ruka (Ex.PD) was sent through PW-7 to the Police Station. After registration of the FIR, it was brought back, whereafter spot map (Ex. PF) was prepared. He sent special report (Ex. PW-1/A) to SDPO, Ani, which was handed over to the Reader. The case property alongwith seizure memo and NCB form, specimen seal impressions, were handed over to MHC Mohar Singh at Police Station, Nirmand. He has identified the contraband substance (Ex.P-1), polythene packet (Ex. P-2), bag (Ex. P-3), specimen seal impressions (Ex. P-4), sample parcels (Ex. P-5 & P-6) in Court. 18. We find that in cross-examination, testimony of this witness remains unimpeachable. In fact for some strange reason, it stands suggested to this witness that at Shaluri Nallah, on both sides of the road, there is a jungle and that police party had seen the accused carrying the bag on his right shoulder. P-5 & P-6) in Court. 18. We find that in cross-examination, testimony of this witness remains unimpeachable. In fact for some strange reason, it stands suggested to this witness that at Shaluri Nallah, on both sides of the road, there is a jungle and that police party had seen the accused carrying the bag on his right shoulder. The witness clarifies that he remained on the spot from 6.30 a.m. till 10.30 a.m. and no vehicle passed during that period. He further clarifies that search was conducted in the torch light, though the day was breaking at that point in time. He further clarifies that at that time he was carrying traditional, i.e. old type pf weights and scales. He also clarifies that since accused had exercised his option of being searched by the police, he did not bring the accused to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He specifically denies false implication of the accused in the crime or that accused was drunk when nabbed at Tikkari Kainchi from the vehicle. 19. We find that this version of his stands fully corroborated by PW-3 and PW-7. There is no discrepancy in their testimonies, doubting or impeaching their creditability. The witnesses are reliable and worthy of credence. 20. We find that link evidence stands sufficiently proved by the prosecution. MHC Mohar Singh (PW-5) has clearly deposed that the contraband and the documents referred to by PW-6 (supra), received by him remained intact in his custody. Ramesh Chand (PW-4), who took the sealed samples to the FSL, has also stated this fact. Report of FSL (Ex. PH) clearly establishes that the sealed contraband substance was in fact Charas. 21. Thus, to our mind, prosecution case stands fully established and proved, beyond reasonable doubt. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to two contradictions in the testimonies of police officials, which according to him are major, belying the prosecution case. 23. The first being variance in the weight of samples sealed by the police. Now, Constable Diwan Chand (PW-2), PW-6 and PW-7, in one voice, have deposed that two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the bulk parcel of the contraband substance. They all depose that samples were sealed with three seals bearing Mark ‘C’. This fact stands corroborated by PW-5 as also the NCB form (Ex. PG). Now, Constable Diwan Chand (PW-2), PW-6 and PW-7, in one voice, have deposed that two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the bulk parcel of the contraband substance. They all depose that samples were sealed with three seals bearing Mark ‘C’. This fact stands corroborated by PW-5 as also the NCB form (Ex. PG). One finds that weight of the sample found in the laboratory is 32 grams. The difference is only of 7 grams. It is true that when Charas dries up, its weight reduces. But, here the weight is more and not less. Is this really a material contradiction, falsifying the prosecution case? 24. In our considered view, the contradiction cannot be said to be material in nature, rendering the prosecution case to be absolutely false or untrue. One cannot ignore the fact that laboratories are equipped with modern equipments, which can weigh an object with exact precision. On the other hand, when one examines the testimony of PW-6, one finds that police party was carrying traditional, i.e. old type of weights and scales. That the police party had weights of 50 grams, 100 grams, and 200 grams, 500 grams and 1 kg, stands fully corroborated by all. Hence, marginal variation in the weight cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 25. To this effect, we may notice that in Dalel Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 149 , the apex Court had an occasion to deal with a case where discrepancy in the weight was more than 5 kgs, yet it did not find fault with the prosecution case, as otherwise there was overwhelming evidence to establish the prosecution case. 26. Also, it is a settled principle of law that slight difference in the weight of the sample is not crucial so as to disregard the entire prosecution case. (See: Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417; and Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 9 SCC 85 ). 27. Another contradiction pointed out is with regard to colour of the contraband substance. As per the FSL report, sample was of “dark green colour” “balls”. PW-3 states that the seized contraband was of black colour. PW-6 states that it was of black and brown colour. PW-7 states that it was dark green in colour. Again, we find this contradiction not of much significance. As per the FSL report, sample was of “dark green colour” “balls”. PW-3 states that the seized contraband was of black colour. PW-6 states that it was of black and brown colour. PW-7 states that it was dark green in colour. Again, we find this contradiction not of much significance. Search took place with the help of torch light, when day was just breaking. Hence, mistake and error in observing the colour is explainable. Also, difference in colours is not significant enough so as to make the prosecution case to be highly improbable or false. It is not that bright coloured substance was recovered and what was sent to the laboratory was a dark coloured substance. Also, what is significant is the fact that contraband substance recovered was in the shape of balls, as is so deposed by PW-6, PW-3 and PW-7, which is so corroborated by the report of the FSL. Thus, decision of the apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable. 28. From the material placed on record it stands established by the prosecution, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused was found to be in conscious and exclusive possession of 2.5 kgs Charas, which police recovered from him. 29. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.