JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 25.7.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 20- NL/7 of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jaspal Singh, whereby the appellant-accused stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15(B) 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 one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 30.6.2004, ASI Dharam Dass (PW-8) recovered contraband substance (Bhukki) from the conscious possession of the accused. Police, on suspicion, searched the bags carried by the accused on his scooter bearing registration No. HP-12-6157. This was so done after associating independent witnesses namely Ramu Sahani (PW-3) and Bhag Singh (not examined) and in their presence contraband substance (bhukki), which upon weighment was found to be 2.5 k.g. recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-3/A). On the basis of Ruka (Ext. PW-8/B), F.I.R. No. 115/04, dated 30.6.2004 (Ext. PW 2/A) came to be registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., against the accused under the provisions of Sections 15 of the Act. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, including filling up of NCB forms (Ext. PW-4/B), in triplicate, and arrest of the accused, case property was produced before SHO Jagdish Ram (PW-4), who after resealing the same with seal impression-R, deposited it with MHC Kamal Nain (PW-2) incharge of the Maalkhana. Constable Chanchal Kumar (PW-5) took the sample parcel for chemical analysis to C.T.L. Kandaghat and report (Ext. PZ) taken on record. Special report (Ext. PW-6/A) was sent through Constable Raj Pal to the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused person in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused person in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Appreciating the material placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court convicted the accused for the charged offence and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is perverse and is not based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of the witnesses. Judgment in question is not based on correct and complete appreciation of evidence and material placed on record, causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Versus State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the apex Court, has held that: “…….Lord Russel delivering the judgment of the Board pointed out that there was "no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in the exercise of its powers as an appellate Tribunal", that no distinction was drawn "between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction", and that "no limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code". …. …. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The apex Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603 , has held that in an appeal against conviction, the appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of evidence, benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to the accused. 9. Also it is settled position of law that graver the punishment the more stringent the proof and the obligation upon the prosecution to prove the same and establish the charged offences. 10. 9. Also it is settled position of law that graver the punishment the more stringent the proof and the obligation upon the prosecution to prove the same and establish the charged offences. 10. In the instant case one of the independent witnesses namely Ramu Sahani (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case at all and despite his extensive cross-examination nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. In fact, he has come up with a totally different version than the one which the prosecution wants the court to believe. No search and seizure operations took place in his presence. Neither the scooter was stopped nor was accused searched by the police in the manner in which the prosecution wants the court to believe. He has explained the signatures on the papers which were obtained on blank papers not on the spot and somewhere else. 11. At this juncture, it be observed that prosecution has not examined other independent witness Bhag Singh, who was given up for having been won over by the accused. Now, there is nothing on record to even prima facie establish such fact. Presence of independent witnesses on the spot appears to be extremely doubtful. 12. In Gurmej Singh and others versus State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 75, the apex Court held that dropping a witness on the specious plea that he was won over without laying the foundation therefor is generally to be frowned upon. But each case has to be considered on its separate facts. 13. In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash (2002) 5 SCC 745 , the Apex Court held as under:- “14. In State of H.P. v. Gian Chand [2000(1) SCC 71] Justice Lahoti speaking for the Bench observed that the Court has first to assess the trustworthy intention of the evidence adduced and available on record. If the court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on then the testimony has to be accepted and acted on though there may be other witnesses available who could have been examined but were not examined.” 14. It is also a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It is also a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in the success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people, in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 15. It is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 16. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. 16. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See: Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760; Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ); and Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 17. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. ... .In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 18. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, we shall now examine the testimony of police officials. 19. ASI Dharam Dass (PW-8) states that on 30.6.2004 he along with HC Neelam and Constable Santosh Kumar was present outside Police Station Nalagarh. At about 9.30 a.m., accused was seen riding scooter bearing No. HP 12-6157. On suspicion the vehicle was stopped and two – three bags carried by him checked. 19. ASI Dharam Dass (PW-8) states that on 30.6.2004 he along with HC Neelam and Constable Santosh Kumar was present outside Police Station Nalagarh. At about 9.30 a.m., accused was seen riding scooter bearing No. HP 12-6157. On suspicion the vehicle was stopped and two – three bags carried by him checked. One bag contained ‘bhukki’ which when weighed was found to be 2.5 kilograms. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn from the recovered contraband. Samples as also the bulk parcel were sealed with seal impression-A and the seal was handed over to witness Bhag Singh. Recovery was effected vide memo (Ext. PW-3/A). Ruka prepared on the spot was sent through Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-1). NCB forms were filled on the spot and after completion of other proceedings on the spot, case property entrusted to SHO Jagdish Ram (PW-4) who resealed the case property with his seal impression-R. He also sent the Special Report (Ext. PW- 6/A) to the superior officer. 20. Constable Santosh Singh (PW-1) tries to corroborate the version of this witness. But then there are contradictions in their statements. As already observed, independent witness Bhag Singh has not been examined in Court and Ramu Sahani (PW-3) is running a tea stall just in front of the police station. He is a stock witness and under the influence of police. Though Constable Santosh Singh states that Ramu Sahani is running a tea stall in front of the Police Station but ASI Dharam Dass denies such fact. Wherefrom weights were brought by the police also remains unexplained on record. There is also variation in the statements of these witnesses with regard to the specification of the weights brought on the spot along with the scale. 21. But what renders the prosecution story to be fatal is the contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials and the difference in weight of the sample taken on the spot and the one analyzed in the laboratory. 22. It is a matter of record that the sample was sent to the laboratory on 1.7.2004 but when weighed in the laboratory, the sample was found to be of 73 grams. Reduction of more than 25% in the weight remains unexplained by the prosecution. It is not that the contraband substance was wet and would have dried over a period of time. 23. Further as per the version of Const. Reduction of more than 25% in the weight remains unexplained by the prosecution. It is not that the contraband substance was wet and would have dried over a period of time. 23. Further as per the version of Const. Santosh Singh he had called the independent witnesses from their shops whereas as per the Investigating Officer witnesses Ramu Sahni and Bhag Singh were present there. There is also contradiction with regard to the time at which the case property was deposited with SHO Jagdish Ram (PW-4). As per this witness the case property was produced before him by the Investigating Officer ASI Dharam Dass at about 1.00 p.m. whereas as per Dharam Dass the same was produced before SHO Jagdish Ram at 12.30 noon. The difference in timings gains significance in the given facts and circumstances. 24. The link evidence in the instance case is also weak. In the report of the chemical analysis, what was the nature of the seals the sample was having is not so disclosed. Also Constable Chanchal Kumar (PW-5) does not state that he took the NCB form to the laboratory. In the road certificate there is no reference of such forms. Whether they were kept safe or not tampered with, itself is in doubt. Further the original seal remains unproven on record. In the given facts and circumstances it has gained significance rendering the prosecution case to be fatal. 25. Trial Court heavily relied upon the photographs allegedly taken at the time of carrying out the search and seizure operations. What needs to be considered is that police had no prior information. They never suspected the accused of carrying the contraband substance. Only on suspicion, but not related to the contraband substance, the school bags carried by the accused were searched. The photographs were taken much after recovery stood effected. The date on which the photographs were taken is also not mentioned and not disclosed by the Investigating Officer. Hence presence of the accused in the photographs is of no significance. The Court erred in heavily relying upon the same. 26. Further, Santosh Singh (PW-1) admits that the contraband substance was recovered only from one bag and the other two bags were not taken into possession. Hence presence of the accused in the photographs is of no significance. The Court erred in heavily relying upon the same. 26. Further, Santosh Singh (PW-1) admits that the contraband substance was recovered only from one bag and the other two bags were not taken into possession. Now Chanchal Kumar (PW-5), who himself is a police official has not supported the prosecution and version of the Investigating Officer (PW-8) of having checked the vehicle appears to be doubtful. According to him no other independent witness other than Ramu Sahani (PW-3) and Bhag Singh were called, which version stands contradicted by Ramu Sahani. Witness admits not to have given details of the case property before producing it before the SHO. As such, his version is rendered to be doubtful. 27. All these contradictions, improbabilities, embellishments stood ignored by the trial Court and as such, findings returned on all the points being perverse and contrary to law are unsustainable in law. 28. Findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stands wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 29. Since prosecution has not been able to establish its case of having recovered the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, no statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 35 of the Act, can be drawn against the accused. 30. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.7.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 20-NL/7 of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jaspal Singh, is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charged offence. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the accused. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.