JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of respondent Dinesh Kumar vide judgment, dated 20th June, 2011, passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2010 arising out of case FIR No. 37/2010 registered at Police Station Manali under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''NDPS Act''). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 4th February, 2010, at about 6.15 p.m., when PW7 ASI Naresh Chand alongwith PW6 HC Keshav Ram, HC Mahinder Singh (not examined), HHC Ajay Kumar (not examined) and HHC Raj Kumar (not examined) was on patrolling to detect the crime on the road Naggar Jana, about one kilometer behind Village Nashala towards Naggar, the police party spotted a person coming from Nashala side towards Naggar, who, on noticing the police party, started going back with fast pace whereupon, on suspicion, police party overpowered the said person, who was perplexed. On inquiry, he disclosed his identity as respondent. On noticing something extra under his right armpit inside the jacket, police party suspected some illegal article with him. Despite waiting for long time, no independent/local person was available as a witness on the spot, therefore, PW7 ASI Naresh Chand associated PW6 HC Keshav Ram and HC Mahinder Singh as witnesses for search and seizure of the person of the respondent. 3. It is case of prosecution that PW7 ASI Naresh Chand gave his personal search to respondent in presence of aforesaid witnesses, memo Ext. PW6/ B was prepared in respect thereof and also informed respondent, orally as well as in writing, vide memo Ext. PW6/ A, about his right to have option to give search of his person before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, whereupon respondent opted to be searched by the police party. During search, a khakhi yellow coloured bag was found under the right armpit inside the jacket worn by respondent and on opening the said bag, round shaped charas wrapped in polythene was found, which was weighed with the help of scales and weights available with the police party. The recovered contraband was found to be 800 grams, which was again put in the same bag and the said bag was sealed with seal ''H'' by putting the same in a cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ext. The recovered contraband was found to be 800 grams, which was again put in the same bag and the said bag was sealed with seal ''H'' by putting the same in a cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ext. PW6/ D. Sample seal impressions were also taken on separate piece of cloth, Ext. PW6/ C. NCB Form Ext. PW4/ B was prepared in triplicate and sample seal ''H'' was also affixed thereupon. Seal ''H'' was handed over to PW6 HC Keshav Ram. Copy of seizure memo Ext. PW6/ D was supplied to respondent free of cost. Rukka Ext. PW7/ A and site plan Ext. PW7/ B were prepared and Rukka Ext. PW7/ A was sent to Police Station Manali through PW6 HC Keshav Ram at 7.45 p.m., who reached the Police Station at 10.25 p.m. He handed over Rukka to PW5 SI Om Chand, the then SHO, who, on the basis of Rukka, lodged FIR Ext. PW5/ A and handed over Rukka back to PW6 HC Keshav Ram at 10.30 p.m. after making endorsement thereupon, which is encircled with red pen. In the meanwhile, PW7 ASI Naresh Chand alongwith remaining police officials also reached the Police Station and PW6 HC Keshav Ram handed over case file and Rukka to PW7 ASI Naresh Chand outside the Police Station. 4. As per prosecution case, PW7 ASI Naresh Chand handed over case property to PW5 SI Om Chand, who resealed the recovered contraband with seal ''K'' and also took sample seal impression on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW5/ C, filled up NCB Form required to be filledin on his part and also facsimiled seal impression on the same. After resealing, PW6 ASI Naresh Chand deposited the case property alongwith documents in the malkhana through PW4 MHC Sher Singh at 10.45 p.m., who filledin column No. 12 of NCB Form and made entry in malkhana register at serial No. 535, extract whereof is Ext. PW4/ A. 5. On 5th February, 2010, PW4 MHC Sher Singh sent the recovered contraband to State Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as ''SFSL''), Junga through PW3 HHC Gautam Chand for chemical examination vide RC No. 34/10 Ext. PW3/ A. PW3 HHC Gautam Chand deposited the parcel in SFSL against receipt endorsed upon RC in red circle ''A''. On the same day, i.e. on 5th February, 2010, A special report, Ext. PW3/ A. PW3 HHC Gautam Chand deposited the parcel in SFSL against receipt endorsed upon RC in red circle ''A''. On the same day, i.e. on 5th February, 2010, A special report, Ext. PW1/ A was also prepared by the Investigating Officer and sent to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu, who, after receipt whereof, made endorsement thereupon, handed over the report to PW1 HC Harbans Kumar, who entered the same in register at serial No. 10, extract whereof is Ext. PW1/ B. After receiving report from SFSL, Ext. PW5/ B, wherein the recovered contraband was found to be extract of cannabis and sample of charas, PW5 SI Om Chand prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 6. During trial, prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case. After recording his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC''), respondent has chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. In his statement under section 313 CrPC, 1973 respondent has taken defence that he is a taxi driver and one bag was recovered by police from the place where he had parked his taxi, he was called to Police Post Patlikuhl on the basis of suspicion and had been roped in a false case on the basis of mere suspicion. On conclusion of trial, the respondent stands acquitted. Hence, the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 8. PW1 HC Harbans Kumar has proved receipt of special report Ext. PW1/ A by Additional Superintendent of Police on 5th February, 2010 at 3.30 p.m. sent by PW7 ASI Naresh Chand. He has denied the suggestions, contrary to prosecution case, put to him doubting the sending and receiving of special report Ext. PW1/ A. 9. PW2 HHC Gurdial Singh has proved daily diary report Ext. PW2/ A whereby prosecution has intended to prove departure of police party from Police Post Patlikuhl towards Naggar, Nashala etc. on patrolling to detect the crime. 10. PW3 HHC Gautam Chand has been examined to prove transmission of recovered contraband from malkhana of Police Station to SFSL Junga. 11. PW2 HHC Gurdial Singh has proved daily diary report Ext. PW2/ A whereby prosecution has intended to prove departure of police party from Police Post Patlikuhl towards Naggar, Nashala etc. on patrolling to detect the crime. 10. PW3 HHC Gautam Chand has been examined to prove transmission of recovered contraband from malkhana of Police Station to SFSL Junga. 11. PW4 HC Shamsher Singh, who was MHC at Police Station Manali at the relevant point of time, has been examined to prove deposit of case property in malkhana by PW5 SI Om Chand, sending the recovered contraband to SFSL Junga through PW3 HHC Gautam Chand and deposit of RC back by him with endorsement of receipt of parcel of contraband in SFSL Junga. 12. PW5 SI Om Chand is the witness examined to prove receipt of Rukka in Police Station, lodging of FIR, handing over case file and Rukka back to PW6, receipt of case property from PW7 in the Police Station, resealing thereof and depositing the same in the malkhana of the Police Station by him. He has also prepared the challan after receiving report of chemical analysis from SFSL Junga and presented the same in the Court. 13. All these witnesses, discussed hereinbefore, were associated during investigation to complete the investigation. None of them is a spot witness. Out of five police officials present on the spot, only two witnesses, i.e. PW6 HC Keshav Ram and Investigating Officer PW7 ASI Naresh Chand, have been examined by the prosecution. No independent witness was associated during investigation by stating that no such witness/person was available despite waiting for some independent witness passing through the spot. 14. There are only official spot witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution in the present case. It is settled law that statements of official witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that there is no independent witness in the case, however, testimonies of official witnesses are to be scrutinized with much more care and caution as the mandatory provisions to associate independent witnesses are to be exempted for conviction on the basis of statements of official witnesses only, causing curtailment of valuable rights and personal liberty of the accused. It is also settled position that for stringent provisions of law and greater punishment provided for an offence, higher degree of proof with minimum contradictions is required to be established on record. 15. It is also settled position that for stringent provisions of law and greater punishment provided for an offence, higher degree of proof with minimum contradictions is required to be established on record. 15. In the light of aforesaid principles, veracity of prosecution case is to be examined on the basis of statements of PW6 HC Keshav Ram and PW7 ASI Naresh Chand. 16. In examination-in-chief, these witnesses have, by and large, corroborated the prosecution story, but, for the reasons stated hereinafter, we are of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of respondent beyond reasonable doubt. There are certain contradictions which create doubt about the presence of police party and respondent on the alleged spot of recovery of contraband near Village Nashala at the relevant time. 17. According to PW6 HC Keshav Ram, police party went to market of Patlikuhl on foot and thereafter, hired a private vehicle to reach Village Nashala, i.e. alleged spot, via rest house road, a short cut to that village, whereas PW7 ASI Naresh Chand stated that police party went on foot from Naggar Chowk to the spot. PW7 ASI Naresh Chand has stated the distance from Naggar to Nashala to be three kilometers and that of Naggar to Patlikuhl to be four kilometers. PW6 HC Keshav Ram claimed arrival on spot in a private vehicle whereas PW7 ASI Naresh Chand claimed at least two kilometer journey from Naggar to Nashala on foot. 18. As per the version of PW7 ASI Naresh Chand, respondent was noticed at a distance of 1015 meters and was apprehended within 20 feet whereas PW6 HC Keshav Ram stated that respondent was spotted at a distance of 4060 meters and was apprehended at a distance of 1520 meters. This discrepancy in distance may be considered to be a minor discrepancy in absence of any other contradiction, but the contradiction with respect to mode and manner of arrival on the spot is a major contradiction, which casts doubt about the presence of police party on the spot. 19. According to prosecution case, respondent searched PW7 ASI Naresh Chand, i.e. the Investigating Officer, at the first instance, while holding the contraband under his right armpit beneath the jacket, that too, with both hands. 19. According to prosecution case, respondent searched PW7 ASI Naresh Chand, i.e. the Investigating Officer, at the first instance, while holding the contraband under his right armpit beneath the jacket, that too, with both hands. PW7, in his crossexamination, has categorically admitted that the bag containing contraband was not tied with the body and in the event of raising arms by the respondent for searching the Investigating Officer, the bag would definitely have fallen down. Therefore, the claim of prosecution that before search of respondent the Investigating Officer was searched by him with both hands, is highly improbable. 20. PW6 HC Keshav Ram, in his crossexamination, has admitted that Nashala is thickly populated village having 7080 houses and the other Village Nathan Seri, which is one kilometer away from Village Nashala towards Naggar side, is also thickly populated. It is claim of the prosecution that respondent was apprehended at a distance of one kilometer from Nashala towards Naggar side. Therefore, respondent must have been apprehended near Village Nathan Seri, whereas as per site plan Ext. PW7/ B, no such village has been shown nearby the alleged spot and spot of recovery has been pretended to be a thick forest area. Further, at the first instance, PW6 HC Keshav Ram, after admitting that road in question was only road connecting villages, has also admitted that the said road remains busy on account of vehicular traffic and pedestrians. However, he selfstated that traffic could not be said to be quite heavy, but it was a scanty road. He further stated that the Investigating Officer had not tried to send any police official to Village Nashala and Nathan to bring independent witnesses and perhaps any official would have been sent to that places, then there was possibility of availability of some independent witnesses. He further stated that police party waited for independent witnesses for about fifteen minutes. 21. Even if lapse of prosecution, not to make an effort by sending police officials to adjoining villages for arranging independent witnesses, is not to be taken into consideration, then also, as admitted by PW6 HC Keshav Ram, it was a busy road, may not be having quite heavy vehicular traffic, but the fact is that police party remained on the spot till 9.00 p.m. as the respondent has been shown to be arrested on the spot at 9.00 p.m. vide arrest memo Ext. PW7/ C and on such a road, which is connecting 2025 villages, it is improbable that no vehicle or pedestrian had crossed the spot for about three hours. 22. It is evident from the admission on the part of PW6 HC Keshav Ram that, in fact, police party, particularly the Investigating Officer, had not made any effort to join any independent witness on the spot. The said fact coupled with the contradictions with respect to mode and manner of arrival of the police party on the spot strengthens the doubt about the prosecution story including the presence of police party and respondent on the alleged spot. 23. There were five police officials on the spot at the relevant time. PW6 HC Keshav Ram remained on the spot till he was sent with Rukka to the Police Station. Thereafter, three police officials, namely HC Mahinder Singh, HHC Raj Kumar and HHC Ajay Kumar remained on the spot with the Investigating Officer. HC Mahinder Singh and HHC Ajay Kumar are also the witnesses to the arrest memo Ext. PW7/ C. None of these three police officials have been examined by the prosecution in the Court. HC Mahinder Singh was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor by stating him to be repetitive in nature. 24. We fail to understand that in a case where no independent witness was associated and punishment for the offence is grave, prosecution has chosen not to examine all the police officials or at least one of them, who were present on the spot after PW6 HC Keshav Ram had left the spot at 7.45 p.m., to ensure veracity of prosecution story. In fact, no witness, corroborating the statement of Investigating Officer PW7 ASI Naresh Chand, has been examined with respect to investigation carried out after 7.45 p.m. 25. Arrest memo Ext. PW7/ C, stated to have been prepared in presence of HC Mahinder Singh and HHC Ajay Kumar, indicates that this document was not prepared as claimed by the prosecution. In this memo, time of arrest has been shown to be 9 o''clock in the evening. Arrest memo Ext. PW7/ C, stated to have been prepared in presence of HC Mahinder Singh and HHC Ajay Kumar, indicates that this document was not prepared as claimed by the prosecution. In this memo, time of arrest has been shown to be 9 o''clock in the evening. On its perusal with naked eye, it can be gathered that earlier there was a mention of 7 o''clock in the evening, however, to adjust timing with the concocted prosecution story, it appears to have tampered from 7 o''clock to 9 o''clock, but the Investigating Officer has failed to correct the said timing from 7 o''clock evening to 9.00 p.m. By no stretch of imagination, time at 9.00 p.m. can be said to be 9 o''clock in the evening. 26. In the documents, i.e. sample seal impression of ''H'' on cloth Ext. PW6/ C, site plan Ext. PW7/ B and arrest memo Ext. PW7/ C, the number of FIR on the top has been filledin in such a manner so as to reflect that it was filledin after preparation of document on getting number of FIR at 10.30 p.m. However, perusal of consent memo Ext. PW6/ A and memo of personal search of Investigating Officer Ext. PW6/ B indicates that the number of FIR has been filledin by preparing the documents in one go from top to bottom. Not only this, Ext. PW5/ C is a sample seal impression of seal ''K'' used for resealing. At the time of preparing this document, number of FIR was available with the police party and SI Om Chand, but in this document, number of FIR has been reflected to have been entered later on by reflecting the same in a manner so that it appears that it was inserted in the document later on. 27. The documents which were prepared before lodging the FIR contain the number of FIR in a manner as it has been written in one go at the time of preparation of documents whereas the documents prepared after having the number of FIR reflect the number of FIR purported to have been inserted later on. 27. The documents which were prepared before lodging the FIR contain the number of FIR in a manner as it has been written in one go at the time of preparation of documents whereas the documents prepared after having the number of FIR reflect the number of FIR purported to have been inserted later on. It appears that the entire proceedings were taken at a place other than the spot, to say at the police station, and the sequence of preparation of these documents was also not in the manner as it should have been or has been alleged in the prosecution story. All this strengthens doubt in prosecution case. 28. It is settled that it is not quantity but the quality of evidence which matters for determining the veracity of prosecution story, however, at the same time, withholding of material evidence/witness is also fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, nonexamination of police officials present on the spot after 7.45 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. definitely warrants drawing of adverse inference against the prosecution. HC Mahinder Singh, who was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor, was not a witness repetitive in nature as he and HHC Ajay Kumar were witnesses to arrest memo and also to the further investigation carried out by the Investigating officer after PW6 HC Keshav Ram had left the spot. But neither HHC Ajay Kumar nor HHC Raj Kumar or HC Mahinder Singh have been examined. 29. In normal course, where an independent witness has been examined with respect to a particular fact, second witness may not be necessary to be examined or resiling of the second independent witness may not be fatal to the prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances, however, in a case where no independent witness has been associated, the prosecution is supposed to examine at least two witnesses of the spot in addition to the Investigating Officer and also at least one corroborative witness to the proceedings carried out by the Investigating Officer on the spot particularly in a case like present one where three official witnesses of the spot were available. In case of nonavailability or absence of witness, thrust to produce such witness is not warranted but despite availability of witness, nonexamination of such witness is fatal for prosecution. 30. In case of nonavailability or absence of witness, thrust to produce such witness is not warranted but despite availability of witness, nonexamination of such witness is fatal for prosecution. 30. PW6 HC Keshav Ram left the spot at 7.45 p.m. and reached the Police Station at 10.25 p.m. after taking a lift from Naggar whereas the Investigating Officer alongwith respondent, accompanied by three police officials, left the spot after 9.00 p.m. and reached the Police Station at 10.30 p.m., i.e. within lesser time than PW6 HC Keshav Ram, which indicates that the Investigating Officer had definitely travelled in some vehicle. It may be natural that in a normal course, police party may not remember the name of driver and the registration number of the vehicle in which it had taken a lift during patrolling before apprehending a person, however, after apprehending a culprit for commission of an offence, when no independent witness had been associated, it was expected from the police party to disclose the mode and manner of coming back to the police station from the spot. In case any vehicle was engaged by the police party, disclosure of details of such vehicle and examination of driver of the said vehicle would have been a material corroborative piece of evidence to prove the veracity of the prosecution story, but prosecution has withheld the evidence in this regard also, which is adverse to the prosecution case. 31. Respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court fortifying the presumption of innocence in his favour which stands unrebutted for want of pointing out any cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the respondent. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record completely and correctly and it cannot be said that acquittal of respondent has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 32. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent and his surety are discharged. Record be sent back.