JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short ‘NDPS’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of `30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution story as emerges from the record is that on 10.1.2010, Head Constable Satya Parkash (PW-5) along with HHC Ranvir Singh (PW-8), Constable Dina Nath (PW-2) and Constable Vyas Dev were on patrolling duty at Balwahan when at about 3.30 P.M. the accused came on the spot. He was carrying a bag in his right hand and on seeing the police party he started running back. Accused was apprehended on suspicion and upon search of the bag, he was found to be in possession of charas, which was wrapped in two parcels with yellow cello tape. The charas so recovered was weighed and found to be 400 grms. The charas was packed in a parcel and sealed with six seals of impression “N”. NCB form Ex. PW4/C in triplicate were filled in at the spot and seal impressions were also affixed on the same and parcel containing charas was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW5/A. The specimen of seal used Ex. PW5/B was taken separately and seal after its use was handed over to PW-8. 3. Rucka Ex. PW-5/C was prepared and sent to the Police Station through PW-2, on receipt whereof FIR PW-6/A came to be registered. Spot map Ex. PW5/D was prepared and accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-5/E. The case property along with sample seals, NCB Form, seizure memo were produced before PW-6, who re-sealed the same with six seals of impression “A” vide memo Ex. PW-5/J. The specimen of the seal used Ex. PW6/B was drawn separately and seal impression was also put on NCB form Ex. PW4/C. The case property along with sample seals, NCB form, seizure memo etc. were deposited with PW-4, who made an entry in the malkhana register. The abstract of which is Ex. PW4/A. The parcel containing contraband along with NCB form, sample seals, copy of FIR were forwarded to FSL Junga through PW-1 vide RC, copy of which is Ex. PW4/C. The case property along with sample seals, NCB form, seizure memo etc. were deposited with PW-4, who made an entry in the malkhana register. The abstract of which is Ex. PW4/A. The parcel containing contraband along with NCB form, sample seals, copy of FIR were forwarded to FSL Junga through PW-1 vide RC, copy of which is Ex. PW4/B, who deposited the same there in safe condition. As per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW-5/J, on analysis the parcel was found to be containing extract of cannabis and samples of charas. The special report Ex. PW5/H was prepared, which was forwarded to Dy.S.P. Sundernagar through PW- 8, who handed over the same to Dy.S.P. Sundernagar, Sh. Raj Kumar Chandel, who after making endorsement to the special report handed over the same to H.C. Ramesh Chand, the then Reader of Dy.S.P. for purpose of record. 4. On conclusion of the investigation, the prosecution submitted the charge sheet and on appearance of the accused copies thereof was supplied to him in accordance with law. On consideration, charges were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned Court below convicted the accused as aforesaid. 5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable as it is based on complete misreading of evidence on record, because there is no cogent, clear or convincing evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The prosecution has miserably failed to show as to why no independent witness, though available on the spot was associated at the time of carrying out search and therefore, the possibility of the accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that if there are two views possible, then the benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that there are major contradictions in the statements of witnesses which establishes beyond doubt the fact that the appellant has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that if there are two views possible, then the benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that there are major contradictions in the statements of witnesses which establishes beyond doubt the fact that the appellant has been falsely implicated. While on the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment, as the same is based upon proper appreciation of evidence, as also law on the subject. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. No doubt PW-2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that the investigating officer did not sent any police official for search of any independent person and has further stated that the spot was a busy one, where a lot of vehicles continue to ply. He further states that he does not remember whether the investigating officer had tried to ask any vehicle owner to join the investigation. Similarly, PW-5 in his cross-examination has also stated that from place Dhanotu to Baggi many vehicles were plying and there were also many persons who were going on foot towards Baggi side. It is also stated that the police remained on the spot approximately for four hours and number of vehicles continue to ply during this time. There is also a categoric admission on his part that he did not make any effort to call any independent witness either from the village Segali or village Bhalwan or even associate persons who were going on the road at that time. Similarly, PW-8 in his cross-examination has also stated that the spot was 24 feet away from the canal and the road on the spot was wide and people and vehicles were frequently passing through the spot during the said date. It has further come in his statement that the investigating officer made no attempt whatsoever to associate independent witnesses at village Segal where according to him there are about fifteen houses. 7. But the question then arises as to whether the entire statements of these police witnesses can be discarded only because they are interested witnesses? The necessity of associating independent witnesses tends to lend more credence and credibility to the investigation. 7. But the question then arises as to whether the entire statements of these police witnesses can be discarded only because they are interested witnesses? The necessity of associating independent witnesses tends to lend more credence and credibility to the investigation. It also cannot be disputed that where all the witnesses are from the Police Department, their depositions must be subject to strict scrutiny. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars could be sought, but then there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon. 8. In Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 , the issue regarding police officials as witnesses was succinctly dealt with in the following matter:- “35. The term witness, means a person who is capable of providing information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in the court, or otherwise. In Pardeep Narayan Madgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 this Court examined the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court therein held that the same must be subject to strict scrutiny. However, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police force, and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars, should be sought. (See also Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1992) 4 SCC 662 , Balbir Singh Vs. State (1995) 11 SCC 139, Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (1997) 8 SCC 732 , M. Prabhulal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 8 SCC 449 and Ravindran Vs. Supt. of Customs (2007) 6 SCC 410 .)” 36. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from source which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. Supt. of Customs (2007) 6 SCC 410 .)” 36. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from source which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness, or that his deposition cannot be relied upon.” Thereafter similar issue again came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand and others Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 420 , wherein it was observed as under:- “31. The next question for consideration does arise as to whether it is necessary to examine an independent witness and further as to whether a case can be seen with doubt where all the witnesses are from the Police Department. 32. In Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434 this Court considered the issue at length and after placing reliance upon its earlier judgments came to the conclusion that where all witnesses are from the Police Department, their depositions must be subject to strict scrutiny. However, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force, and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought. The Court held as under: “Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there cannot be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness, or that his deposition cannot be relied upon.” (See also Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1992) 4 SCC 662 , Balbir Singh Vs. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 , Akmal Ahmad Vs. State of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 337 , M. Prabhulal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 8 SCC 449 and Ravindran Vs. Supt. Of Customs (2007) 6 SCC 410 .) 33. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. State of Haryana (1992) 4 SCC 662 , Balbir Singh Vs. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 , Akmal Ahmad Vs. State of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 337 , M. Prabhulal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 8 SCC 449 and Ravindran Vs. Supt. Of Customs (2007) 6 SCC 410 .) 33. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 this Court examined a similar issue in a case where no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document. The Court observed that: (SCC p. 662, para 21) “21….it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. …At any rate, the court cannot [begin] with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around.” The wise principle of presumption, which is also recognized by the legislature, is that judicial and official acts are regularly performed. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe that version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. The burden is on the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or though other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is unreliable. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume that police action is unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions. 34. In Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241 this Court dealt with the issue of non-examining the independent witnesses and held as under: (SCC pp. 245-46, para 11) “11. … the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. 245-46, para 11) “11. … the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.” 35. The principle of law laid down hereinabove is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, mere non-joining of an independent witness where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable, cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution if there seems to be no reason on record to falsely implicate the appellants.” 9. No doubt, no independent witness was admittedly associated while conducting the search of the bag in possession of the accused by the police officials, but once these statements are minutely scrutinized, they appear to be consistent, cogent and reliable. The investigating officer H.C. Satya Pal (PW-5) in his statement has stated that on 10.1.2010 at about 3.30 P.M. he along with other police officials while on patrolling duty was present at Balwahan when the accused came from link road Segali and on seeing the police party, he turned back and tried to ran away, but was apprehended on suspicion. He was seeing carrying a bag in his right hand which arouse suspicion and when same was searched, it was found containing two packets wrapped with yellow cello tape. On opening the packets, charas in the shape of balls was recovered and thereafter the charas was weighed and found to be 400 grms. The statement of PW-5 is corroborated by Constable Dina Nath (PW- 2) and HHC Ranvir Singh, who were the other members of the police party. 10. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable and there is hardly any discrepancy in their statements regarding the presence of the accused, search of the accused and recovery of the contraband. 10. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable and there is hardly any discrepancy in their statements regarding the presence of the accused, search of the accused and recovery of the contraband. Moreover, the accused could not elicit any material contradiction in their statements so as to discredit their testimony. The prosecution has successfully established its case by further proving that the contraband so recovered from the possession of the appellant was weighed, packed and then sent for chemical examination, which on examination was found to be charas. Al the relevant documents like NCB forms, seals etc. have been successfully proved on record. As observed earlier, despite carrying out lengthy cross-examination, nothing contrary could be elicited so as to discredit the testimony of these witnesses. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which shatter not only their credibility but the very veracity of their statements. He in particular invited my attention to the statement of PW-1 (Jai Pal), who in his cross-examination had stated that he had only taken the case property involved in the present case for analysis to the Chemical Examiner. Whereas, in the testimony of Durga Dass (PW-4), which has been exhibited in the present case and relates to the accused in another case, named Sandeep who was also apprehended on the same date, reveals that on 10.1.2010 PW-1 was handed over the case property not only pertaining to case No. 18 of 2010, but also pertaining to case Nos. 19 and 15 of 2010. It needs to be clarified that the present case is the fallout of FIR No. 19 of 2010, while the case of Sandeep arises out of FIR No. 18 of 2010. He further strenuously argued that PW-6 had claimed to have sealed only this case property, while it is proved on record that he on the said date had also sealed the contraband recovered in the other cases. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but I do not find that the so called contradictions are so material, which will impeach or affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but I do not find that the so called contradictions are so material, which will impeach or affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is more than settled that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground, on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. 13. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. 14. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the discrepancies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. 15. Minor discrepancies on trivial maters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324 after dwelling into the subject in detail and after considering a large number of earlier judgments rendered by it has held as under:- “30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. “9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide State Vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587, Arumugam Vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 590 , Mahendra Pratap Sing Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 .]” 17. Once the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 are tested on the touchstones of the principles laid down in Naresh’s case (supra), it would be noticed that their statements when read as a whole do not in any manner indicate or point out towards the innocence of the appellant. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 .]” 17. Once the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 are tested on the touchstones of the principles laid down in Naresh’s case (supra), it would be noticed that their statements when read as a whole do not in any manner indicate or point out towards the innocence of the appellant. This Court cannot lose site of the fact that the incident in question relates to 10.1.2010 while the statement of PW-1 was recorded more than 3½ years of the incident on 5.7.2013 and likewise the statement of PW-6 was recorded thereafter on 17.9.2013. After such long period of time, there was bound to be discrepancies in their statements due to normal errors of memory and even due to lapse of time, but then these omissions do not amount to contradictions creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses, particularly when there is documentary evidence in the form of NCB forms, which establishes on record that the contraband recovered from the appellant had been duly sent for Chemical Examiner. It is further established on record not only the recovery, but also the fact that upon examination the material recovered from the appellant was charas. In view of the discussion above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.