JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., convict Latif Mohd. has assailed the judgment dated 06.04.2017, passed by Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Case Filing No./NDPS Act/418/2015. (Regd. No./NDPS Act/30/2015), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Latif Mohd., whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 ½ years. 2. Allegedly 1 kg 456 grams of charas stands recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. While convicting the accused, learned trial Court has found: (a) genesis of the prosecution story to be believable; (b) witnesses to be reliable and worthy of credence; and (c) the defence taken by the accused not to have been established on record. 3. In our considered view, the approach adopted by the trial Court, to say the least, has been extremely erroneous if not perverse. The learned trial Court proceeded as though onus to establish innocence solely rests upon the accused. It is true that under the provisions of the NDPS Act, there is a statutory presumption, but then such presumption, would arise only and only if it is proven, at the first instance that prosecution has been able to establish the genesis of the prosecution story of recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused to be true. 4. Now let us examine as to what really is the prosecution case. 5. It has come in the testimonies of HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2), HHC Ravinder Singh (PW.3) and HC Virender Singh (PW.7) that in the night of 01.06.2015, police party, left Police Station Sadar, Chamba on a routine checking duty. At about, 2.15 am, they set up a Nakka at a place known as Balu Chowk, when they saw two persons, a male and a female come from the opposite side. Seeing the police party, these persons tried to flee away and as such, on apprehension, were chased and apprehended. At about, 2.15 am, they set up a Nakka at a place known as Balu Chowk, when they saw two persons, a male and a female come from the opposite side. Seeing the police party, these persons tried to flee away and as such, on apprehension, were chased and apprehended. The male, who is the present accused Latif Mohd., was nabbed by Head Constable Ravinder Singh (PW.3) and the female was nabbed by another lady constable Uma Devi (not examined). Both these persons (female and the male) were searched and from the bag carried by the male i.e. the accused, charas in the shape of sticks and rounds was recovered. Since the police party was having the investigation kit and the weighing scales, contraband substance, which was checked, was found to be charas and as such was weighed. It was of 1 kg 456 grams. Prior thereto, NCB forms (Ex.PW.7/A) were filled up. HC Virender Singh (PW.7) prepared Rukka (PW.7/B) and sent it through HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1) to the Police Station for registration of FIR, which was so registered as Ex.PW.6/A by HC Rajput Pradeep (PW.6). Where after, Mohd. Aslam returned to the spot. With the completion of the proceedings on the spot, police party along with the accused returned to the Police Station, where the contraband substance was entrusted to the SHO Harnam Singh (PW.12), who after resealing the same, handed it over to MHC Rajput Pradeep (PW.6). Special report was sent to the superior authorities through HHC Rajesh Kumar (PW.8), which was received by Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW.9). Report (Ex.PX) of the Scientific Analyst was obtained by HHC Bhim Singh (PW.4). 6. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took defence of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 8. 7. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took defence of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 8. Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be inspiring in confidence, Trial Court convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by the convict. 9. Having heard Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr.Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of the appellant as also Ms.Rita Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State, as also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence, so placed on record by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that trial Court committed grave illegality in convicting the accused, for the reasons discussed hereinafter. Contradictions and improbabilities which are glaring, rendering the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful, if not false. Conviction has resulted into travesty and miscarriage of justice. 10. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Versus State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the apex Court, has held as under: “…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) 11. 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. 12. It is a 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. 13. 12. It is a 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. 13. 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 witnesses or 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 eyewitness 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 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. 14. It is also 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. 15. 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. 15. 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]. 16. With these principles we discuss the evidence. 17. Noticeably prosecution has not examined any independent witness. The case solely rests upon the testimonies of HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2), HHC Ravinder Singh (PW.3) and HC Virender Singh (PW.7) being the spot witnesses and HC Rajput Pradeep (PW.6) and SI/Addl. SHO Harnam Singh (PW.12) being other police officials, who conducted the remaining proceedings at the Police Station corroborating the case of recovery. 18. As per the version of HC Virender Singh (PW.7), he along with HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2), HHC Ravinder Singh (PW.3) and lady constable reached the spot and set up a Nakka. Noticeably, it has come in the testimonies of all these witnesses that the police party travelled in private vehicles from the Police Station to the place where Nakka was set up. Now there is no sanction, on record, authorizing such persons to travel in a private vehicle. Why would a police party at the first instance travel in a private vehicle remains unexplained, after all it was not a case of prior intimation. Routine checkup duty has to be in an authorized vehicle. 19. That apart, genesis of the prosecution story of having set up Nakka and apprehended the accused in the middle of the night itself appears to be doubtful and this we say so for the reason that according to HHC Mohd. Routine checkup duty has to be in an authorized vehicle. 19. That apart, genesis of the prosecution story of having set up Nakka and apprehended the accused in the middle of the night itself appears to be doubtful and this we say so for the reason that according to HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2), HHC Ravinder Singh (PW.3) and HC Virender Singh (PW.7), accused was accompanied by a lady, who also was nabbed and searched by another lady constable. It has come in the testimony of HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1) and HC Virender Singh (PW.7) that both the accused and that lady were carrying bags and as such were searched by the respective police officials. Now who is this lady? what happed to her? what was found from her possession? why was she let off? and who was that another lady constable who also searched her, remains an undisclosed mystery. Why lady constable Uma Devi was not examined in Court, has not been explained by the prosecution. In fact, from the testimony of Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2), it is evident that there were two lady constables, namely, Uma Devi and Shakuntala Devi (PW.11), both of whom have not been examined on the point in issue. 20. There is yet another reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of the police officials with regard to setting up of Nakka and the accused apprehended at the said place. HHC Mohd. Aslam and Constable Sunil Kumar admit that in and around the place, where the accused was apprehended, there are commercial establishments and local habitation. It has also come in the testimony of these witnesses that even though commercial establishments were closed, but chowkidars are available and vegetable shops open up early in the morning. According to these witnesses, an endeavour was made to search for an independent witness, for HC Virender Singh had sent HC Ravinder Singh for such purpose. But HC Ravinder Singh while stepping into the witness box as PW.3 does not whisper anything about such fact. Not only that, there is contradiction even on this aspect, for according to HC Virender Singh, it was not HC Ravinder Singh, but some other person, who was sent for searching independent witnesses. Also he denies existence of any commercial establishment at the place of occurrence of the incident, which fact stands materially contradicted both by HHC Mohd. Not only that, there is contradiction even on this aspect, for according to HC Virender Singh, it was not HC Ravinder Singh, but some other person, who was sent for searching independent witnesses. Also he denies existence of any commercial establishment at the place of occurrence of the incident, which fact stands materially contradicted both by HHC Mohd. Aslam and Constable Sunil Kumar. 21. As already observed, there is no explanation forthcoming as to who was that lady, who was found to have accompanied the accused, carrying bag on her person. Also what happened to her. Undisputedly, she was not arrayed as an accomplice. Now if police did not suspect her to be involved in the crime, then why she was not associated as an independent witness for conducting the proceedings on the spot remains unexplained. 22. Further, there is material contradiction with regard to the manner in which search was conducted. HC Virender Singh states that search was conducted in the street light as also with the help of the demo light. Whereas, on the other hand, HHC Mohd. Aslam and Constable Sunil Kumar, categorically state that there was no light and proceedings were conducted only in the light of the vehicle and the demo light. 23. There is yet another reason for us to disbelieve the witnesses and the genesis of the prosecution story so deposed by them that being the factum of Rukka taken to the Police Station and the time which HHC Mohd. Aslam took to return to the spot after registration of the FIR. It appears documents were prepared later on in the Police Station. Noticeably it stands admitted by HHC Mohd. Aslam and Constable Sunil Kumar that the distance from the alleged place of occurrence to the Police Station is only 1 km, yet it took more than 2 ½ hours for the police official to reach the Police Station. Noticeably, Rukka was sent at about 3.45 am and the witness reached the Police Station at 6.05 am. Faintly it is sought to be explained that prior to reaching the Police Station, the said Constable had gone to report the matter to the superior authority. But then, this explanation is highly un-plausible and untenable, apart from the fact that it stands contradicted by HC Virender Singh himself, who states that the higher authority was informed much after registration of the FIR. But then, this explanation is highly un-plausible and untenable, apart from the fact that it stands contradicted by HC Virender Singh himself, who states that the higher authority was informed much after registration of the FIR. It is the version of the police officials on record that the vehicle in which they travelled belonged to them. If that were so, then why HHC Mohd. Aslam did not travel to the Police Station carrying the Rukka in that vehicle, more so, when he himself owned it. 24. There are yet other reasons for us to disbelieve the prosecution case. According to HC Rajput Pradeep (PW.6), it was he who recorded the FIR (Ex.PW.6/A). Whereas, according to SI/Addl. SHO Harnam Singh (PW.12), it was he who lodged the same. 25. Also no endeavour was made to associate any of the passengers or the drivers of the vehicles, which had passed by at the time of the incident. 26. We notice that HHC Mohd. Aslam, who is a police official, in fact, appears to be a stock witness of HC Virender Singh. For it has come in his testimony that in more than 22 cases in which investigation was conducted by HC Virender Singh, this witness had invariably appeared as a witness. 27. Further we may add that it has come in the testimony of Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.2) that he could not specify the exact time of preparation of jamatalashi of the accused and “The IO did not try to associate any witness during the preparation of the arrest memo and jamatalashi”. Now all this shatters the testimonies of police officials, namely HHC Mohd. Aslam (PW.1) and HC Virender Singh (PW.7) that an endeavour was made to associate independent witnesses at the time of occurrence of the incident. 28. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, we find the genesis of the prosecution story of having recovered the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused to be extremely doubtful, if not false. Having arrived to such a conclusion, we are of the considered view that the statutory presumption of existence of mental state of the accused of having committed the crime cannot be invoked and presumed. The initial burden thus cannot be said to have been discharged. 29. We are of the considered view that the witnesses are only unreliable and their testimonies are unbelievable and not worthy of credence. The initial burden thus cannot be said to have been discharged. 29. We are of the considered view that the witnesses are only unreliable and their testimonies are unbelievable and not worthy of credence. The contradictions are many and material. Certain facts remain totally unexplained and it is for these reasons we find the order of conviction to be perverse. 30. Further HC Rajput Pradeep admits that in the malkhana register, he did not mention the description of receiving the NCB forms and the sample seals. Not only that, it stands admitted by him that he did not mention the rapat number of having received the case property as also the result of the chemical analyst in the malkhana register. Now even from the said statement, it cannot be established that by way of corroborative evidence, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 31. Noticeably in para-23 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court wrongly observed that “it is not the case of the accused that he was not present at the spot”. This finding of fact is not borne out from the record. The trial Judge presumed and assumed the guilt of the accused and as such proceeded to appreciate the evidence and decide the case. Simply because police party did not harbour any animosity against the accused, that fact itself would not lend credence to the credibility of the witnesses or make their testimonies believable. It is in this backdrop, we find the observation made by the trial Court that police party had no animosity against the accused and as such their testimonies could be believed to be legally unsustainable. The learned trial Court also erred in coming to the conclusion that simply because no complaint was lodged by the accused of false implication, that fact would render the plea of false implication to be incorrect. Mere absence of filing complaint, ipso facto would not tantamount to admission of guilt by the accused, for it would only be a circumstance against the accused only and only if at the first instance prosecution is able to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 32. The trial Court also erred in coming to the conclusion that the contradictions recorded in para-24 of the impugned judgment are trivial in nature not having any bearing on the genesis of the prosecution case. 32. The trial Court also erred in coming to the conclusion that the contradictions recorded in para-24 of the impugned judgment are trivial in nature not having any bearing on the genesis of the prosecution case. As we have already observed the genesis of the prosecution story stands shattered, for we find the testimonies of the police officials not to be worthy of credence. 33. 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 stand wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 34. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 06.04.2017, passed by Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Case Filing No./NDPS Act/418/2015. (Regd. No./NDPS Act/30/2015), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Latif Mohd., is set aside and convict Latif Mohd. is acquitted of the charged offence. He be released from jail, if not required in any other process of law. Amount of fine, if deposited by the convict, be refunded to him. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.