JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment rendered on 10.3.2017, by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, upon, Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2011/74/2016, whereby the appellant stands convicted, AND, is consequently sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for eight years AND to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/-, for commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) AND in default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2010, a police party consisting of ASI Jai Lal (PW-7), HC Mahender Singh, C. Nikhil Kondal (PW-3) and C. Devender Prashad had gone for patrolling from Police Post, Patlikuhal. When the party was on way from Parahari to Damchin, through jungle, at 11:45 AM, and reached Thachi Rongpul, accused was noticed coming towards Damchin side having a green coloured rucksack in his right hand. On seeing the police party, accused turned back and tried to escape. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion of having some illegal object in the rucksack, being carried by him. On inquiry, accused disclosed his name and address. The accused could not explain satisfactorily about the contents in the rucksack. IO sent C. Nikhil Kondal to bring independent witnesses, but no witness was found available. Thereafter, C. Nikhil Kondal and HC Mahender were associated to witness the proceedings. I.O., in the presence of witnesses, apprised the accused about his legal right to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He consented to be searched by the police present at the spot vide memo, Ext. PW3/A, but nothing illegal was found in his possession. Thereafter, the rucksack Ext. P-2, being carried by the accused was checked. In it, another blue coloured bag containing stick shaped Charas Ext. P-5, was found wrapped in polythene wrappers, Ext. P-4. The recovery of Charas was weighed and found to be 800 gms, which was repacked in same fashion and then sealed along with rucksack, Ext. P-2, in cloth parcel, Ext. P-1, with eight seals of seal impression T’. NCB form in triplicate were filled by the I.O., one of which, is, Ext. PW2/C. He also drew sample of seal ‘T’ on cloth pieces, one of which is Ext. P-2, in cloth parcel, Ext. P-1, with eight seals of seal impression T’. NCB form in triplicate were filled by the I.O., one of which, is, Ext. PW2/C. He also drew sample of seal ‘T’ on cloth pieces, one of which is Ext. PW3/D and seal, after use, was handed over to C. Nikhil Kondal (PW-3) for safe custody. The parcel of case property taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW3/C. Copy of seizure memo was supplied to the accused, free of cost. Thereafter, I.O. prepared rukka, Ext. PW3/E and handed over same to C. Nikhil Kondal (PW-3) with a direction to carry the same to P.S. Manali, for the registration of the case and on receipt of the same. Inspector, Om Chand (PW-6), who was officiating SHO on that day in the police station, registered FIR, Ex. PW3/F, by putting his endorsement on the ruqua and handed over the case file to C. Nikhil Kondal with a direction to hand over the same to I.O. at the spot. IO prepared the spot map Ext. PW7/A, and also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C., as per their version. The accused was apprised about the grounds of arrest and thereafter, arrested vide memo, Ext. PW7/B, and information, qua his arrest, was given to his relative. On the completion of the proceedings at the spot, accused along with case property, was brought to Police Station, Manali and produced before officiating SHO/SI (PW-5) vide Rapat Ext. PW5/A. SI Om Chand resealed the parcel, Ext. P-1 with four seals of “O”. He also filled relevant columns of NCB I form, Ext. PW2/C, and put facsimile of seal “O” thereon. He also drew sample of seal “O” Ext. PW6/A, and deposited the case property, i.e. parcel, Ext. P-1, containing 800 grams of Charas, along with sample seals “T” and “O” from NCB I form, in triplicate, and other documents with MHC of police station vide rapat, Ext. PW5/B, who entered the same in Register No. 19 of Malkhana at Sr. No. 672, the abstract of which is, Ext. PW2/A, and deposited the same in Malkhana. The case property remained in his safe custody. On 28.11.2010, after filling column No. 12 of NCB I form, PW-2 sent parcel, Ext. PW5/B, who entered the same in Register No. 19 of Malkhana at Sr. No. 672, the abstract of which is, Ext. PW2/A, and deposited the same in Malkhana. The case property remained in his safe custody. On 28.11.2010, after filling column No. 12 of NCB I form, PW-2 sent parcel, Ext. P-1 along with NCB forms, samples seal “T” and “O” as well as other relevant documents to FSL, Junga, vide docket, PW2/B, through, C. Jiwa Nand (PW-4) vide R.C., Ext.PW2/D, who deposited the same in FSL Junga and obtained the receipt on R.C. and then on his return to the police station, deposited the same with the MHC (PW-2). On 28.11.2010, Investigating Officer prepared special report, Ext. PW1/A, and submitted the same before the then SDPO Manali, who after making his endorsement on the special report, handed over the same to his Reader, HC Sher Singh (PW-2), who entered the same in the relevant register, the abstract and as per analysis, the contents of exhibit were opined the extract of cannabis and sample of Charas. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused was charged for committing, an offence punishable, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was, recorded by the trial Court, wherein he made disclosures qua his false implication. He did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 6. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel appearing, for the accused/appellant has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not based, on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, has with compatible force and vigor, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, standing, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The Investigating Officer concerned, through, recovery memo borne in Ext. PW3/C, effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of the convict, recovery, of, Charas weighing 800 gms. In sequel to recovery’s of the aforesaid quantum of contraband, standing effectuated, from the purported conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused person, the Investigating Officer concerned, prepared NCB form, form whereof stands comprised in Ext. PW2/C “wherein” revelations occur, of, his “embossing upon” the bulk parcels comprised in Ext. P-1 , eight seals of English Alphabet “T” (ii) also echoings occur in Ext.PW5/A, of, thereafter Ext. P-1 standing re-sealed, by the SHO concerned, at the Police Station concerned, with four seals, carrying English Alphabet “O”. The aforesaid exhibit containing therein “the” Charas, exhibit whereof stood seized under Ext.PW 3/C (iii) “from the” purported conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused “stood” under a road certificate comprised, in Ext.PW-2/D, hence sent for analysis to the FSL concerned. The FSL Junga purveyed its report thereon, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PW6/B, wherein it recorded a firm opinion, of, the contents enclosed in the aforesaid bulk parcel “sent to it” for analysis, holding ingredients of Charas. Apart therefrom, the prosecution for establishing the charge, to which the accused stood subjected to, relied upon the depositions’ of, official witnesses. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General, has contended, that, with the FSL concerned receiving “in an untampered condition” the bulk parcel, comprised in Ext. P-1, recovery whereof stood effectuated, “through” memo comprised in Ext.PW3/C “from the” purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, (i) also with the FSL concerned in its report rendered in respect of, contents enclosed therein, report whereof is comprised in Ext. P-1, recovery whereof stood effectuated, “through” memo comprised in Ext.PW3/C “from the” purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, (i) also with the FSL concerned in its report rendered in respect of, contents enclosed therein, report whereof is comprised in Ext. PW6/B “unveiling” the trite factum of “its” containing Charas, hence “ought to” constrain this Court, to affirm the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused. He contends that with the apposite NCB form, comprised in Ext. PW2/C (ii) holding complete connectivity “with” the road certificate besides with the seizure memo, comprised in Ext. PW3/C, AND, also with the report of the FSL concerned, comprised in Ext. PW6/B (iii) importantly “in respect” of all the relevant descriptions vis-à-vis all seal impressions, initially embossed thereon “at” the relevant site of occurrence, by the Investigating Officer (iv) also in respect “of” descriptions of all the re-embossed/resealed “seal” impressions thereon, “by” the SHO concerned, (v) “ultimately”, with the prosecution witnesses, to whom the case property stood shown in Court, theirs’ thereat categorically “voicing”, of, the case property “holding absolute analogity” with respect, to, all the apt descriptions, in respect thereof, respectively, held in NCB form Ext. PW2/C, road certificate Ext.PW-2/D, AND, with the report of FSL, comprised in Ext.PW6/B”, (vi) thereupon the judgment of conviction returned upon the accused hence warranting affirmation. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has contended with much vigor, that the relevant intra se connectivity’s/congruities interse the seizure of bulk parcel “through” Ext. PW3/C, “from” the purported conscious and exclusive possession of accused/appellant, vis-à-vis all the aforesaid relevant descriptions (vii) “not” standing efficaciously proven vis-à-vis the case property “at the stage of its” production in Court. He espouses that the relevant interse lack of analogity’s in respect of descriptions, of all seal impressions embossed thereon, at the stage when it stood seized, under memo Ext. He espouses that the relevant interse lack of analogity’s in respect of descriptions, of all seal impressions embossed thereon, at the stage when it stood seized, under memo Ext. PW3/C (viii) and also at the stage when it stood resealed, by the SHO concerned besides in respect of all the apposite seal impressions, displayed in the report of the FSL, comprised in Ext.PW6/B vis-à-vis the ultimate stage, of its production, in Court, whereat it stood shown to the prosecution witnesses, (ix) “is aroused” by the factum of (a) the Public Prosecutor concerned “at” the stage, of, the prosecution witnesses concerned, standing shown, “in Court” the relevant case property “his” not adducing before the trial Court, the relevant abstract, of, the Malkhana Register, with portrayals therein (x) that at the time of its standing retrieved, from, the Malkhana concerned, by its Incharge, the latter in contemporanity thereof, recording in the relevant register, apposite entries in respect thereof (xi) the Public Prosecutor concerned at the time, of production of the case property in Court, for its hence being shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned “their not” making any communications there before, that “it” stood delivered to him, by an authorized official. (xii) However, the aforesaid submission, does not obtain any strength. (xiii) “Significantly” when a close discernment, of, the depositions’, of, the material prosecution witnesses’ “unveil”, that the learned defence counsel “during” the course of holding them to cross-examination, (xiv) his thereat “omitting to” put apposite suggestion to them, in respect of the apposite bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-1, seizure whereof occurred, through, memo comprised, in Ext. PW3/C “not” standing related, to the apposite subsequently therewith prepared NCB Form, comprised in Ext.PW-2/C, (xv) AND vis-à-vis road certificate comprised in Ext.PW-2/D, AND vis-a-vis the report, of the FSL comprised in Ext.PW 6/B ”(xvi) “intra se un-relatability whereof”, arising from their occurring apparent intra se incongruity’s, with respect to all the apposite descriptions, of all seal impressions, drawn thereon vis-à-vis the ones embossed, on, Ext.P-1 AND vis-à-vis all the apposite displays borne in NCB form, embodied in Ext. PW2/C. (xvii) Even though, the learned defence counsel “at” the stage, of production of Ext.P-1 in Court “had” an opportunity to decipher, from, the case property “occurrence of” any apparent mis-descriptions AND also want of any intra se congruity’s inter se, all the aforesaid exhibits vis-à-vis bulk parcel Ext.P-1 also when the learned defence counsel thereat, held the best opportune moment, to hence make/the relevant unearthings, with respect, to, lack of all purported intra se incongruities interse the aforesaid exhibits vis-à-vis Ext.P-1 (bulk parcel) (xviii) “yet/his” failing to thereat put apposite suggestions to the prosecution witness “in respect of” any lack of intra se analogitys erupting inter se the relevant echoings, made in bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-1, seizure whereof occurred “through” memo Ext.PW-3/C, AND respectively vis-à-vis NCB Form borne in PW2/C, road certificate Ext.PW-2/D AND the report of the FSL comprised in Ext. PW6/B” (xix) “significantly” with respect to all seal impressions embossed upon Ext. P-1 hence standing displayed or not displayed, in all the aforesaid memos. Consequently, his omitting to hence make any apposite unearthings, from PWs’, at the relevant stage, especially with respect to lack of any intra se interse analogitys, with, respect to all relevant descriptions borne thereon, (xx) conspicuously with respect to all seal impressions borne thereon vis-à-vis all seal impressions borne, on all memos, prepared subsequently thereto, (xxi) hence begets an inference, of, the defence acquiescing, to recovery of Charas, occurring “through” Ext.PW3/C, also its conceding, of, recovery of the relevant contraband, hence occurring, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, also thereupon an inference is galvanized, of, bulk parcel Ext.P-1, at, the imperative stage of its production in Court, hence standing efficaciously proven, to stand recovered from the site of occurrence, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 11. This Court has with great circumspection dwelt, upon, the efficacy of the aforesaid submissions, also has traversed, through, the entire evidence apposite thereto. 11. This Court has with great circumspection dwelt, upon, the efficacy of the aforesaid submissions, also has traversed, through, the entire evidence apposite thereto. Importantly, with the case property bearing the signatures of the accused; (b) besides, of, the prosecution witnesses concerned ; (c) importantly, with its bearing absolute concurrences interse all the embossed seal impressions thereon, vis-à-vis, those borne in the relevant memos, (d) thereupon, with, each of the prosecution witnesses’ aforesaid, to whom the case property stood shown, in Court (ii) hence also in tandem therewith rendering testifications with absolute unanimity, of its, thereat bearing concurrences, on all the aforesaid fronts, vis-à-vis the apposite therewith recitals borne in memo comprised in Ext. PW3/C, whereunder its recovery’s stood effectuated.(iii) thereupon, does reinforce the abovestated conclusion, of, upon its production in Court, its evidently holding all apt concurrences with the connected therewith memos. 12. Furthermore, the sample seal taken, on pieces of cloth, bearing Ext. P-1, holds the signatures of the accused, as also of witnesses thereto, even Exhibit PW3/C holds the signatures of the accused, as well as of all the official witnesses thereto, (i) besides sample seal cloth parcel Ext. P-1 holds the signatures of the accused and of the witnesses thereto. (ii) With occurrence of all aforesaid signatures thereon, especially when the learned defence counsel, has not, made any attempt for ripping apart authenticity’s thereof (iii) also his failing to make attempts, in respect of the signatures, of the accused being obtained under compulsion or under duress, also, boosts an inference of his conceding vis-à-vis the truth of all the recitals occurring therein. (iv) Conspicuously, therefrom, it is to be concluded of his omitting to, make endeavours in respect of the relevant items of contraband, recovered under Ext. PW 3/C, being unrelated to bag Ext.P-1. (v) Omissions of aforesaid endeavours also negate the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, of, the relevant recovery being bereft of any sanctity, theirs being sequelled by sheer contrivance, deployed by the Investigating Officer concerned, for thereupon his falsely implicating the accused. 16. PW 3/C, being unrelated to bag Ext.P-1. (v) Omissions of aforesaid endeavours also negate the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, of, the relevant recovery being bereft of any sanctity, theirs being sequelled by sheer contrivance, deployed by the Investigating Officer concerned, for thereupon his falsely implicating the accused. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant/convict, submits (i) that with PW-3 and PW-7, in their respective depositions, borne in their respective cross-examinations, hence making vivid disclosures qua availability of a thickly inhabited locality in proximity, to, the site of occurrence, (ii) besides despite their, availability in proximity at the site of occurrence, yet the Investigating Officer concerned, making no concerted efforts, for associating them in the relevant proceedings, (iii) thereupon his omissions being hence both deliberate and intentional, for only smothering the truth of the prosecution case. 17. The force of the aforesaid submission, is blunted, (a) by evidently no apposite suggestions, being put to each of them by the learned defence counsel, while holding them to cross-examination qua (b) of the Investigating Officer concerned, rearing any animosity or inimicality vis-à-vis the accused, hence his omitting to join independent witnesses’, in the relevant proceedings. (i) Absence of purveying of the aforesaid suggestions vis-à-vis the police witnesses’, by the learned defence counsel, while subjecting them, to cross-examination, (c) contrarily begets an inference, of, the mere non-associations, in the relevant proceedings, by the Investigating Officer, of independent witnesses, though, evidently available in proximity, to, the site of occurrence, (ii) rather not emanating, from, the Investigating Officer concerned, hence concerting to smother the truth of the prosecution case, nor his omissions are construable to be either deliberate or intentional. 18. The non-association of independent witnesses, despite, their evident availability, in proximity to the site of occurrence, would assume significance, (i) upon the defence efficaciously establishing, existences, of, deep pervasive snags, in all the link evidences, embodied in the NCB form, prepared at the site of occurrence, upto the FSL, concerned, purveying an affirmative opinion, upon, the apposite seizure, qua contents thereof being Charas,(ii) besides the defence bringing forth cogent evidence, of theirs’ being apparent lack of connectivity, interse, the case property, at the stage of its production in Court, vis-à-vis, the one, which stood recovered, under, seizure memo borne in Ext. PW3/C. (iii) However, with all the evident apt linkages appertaining vis-à-vis the recovery’s, of, the case property, under memo Ext. PW3/C, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, upto an affirmative opinion being recorded thereon, by the FSL, (iv) besides thereafter, upon, its production, in Court, rather hence being cogently proven, to, occur in an untampered unbroken chain AND its bearing absolute concurrences, with recovery’s thereof, effectuated under memo Ext. PW3/C, (v) also with all apt linkages, in respect, of, all the evident concurrences vis-à-vis all the seal impressions borne, on, the relevant forms prepared at the site of occurrence, vis-à-vis the ones borne on the case property, upon, its production in Court, (vi) thereupon, given evident omissions of the aforesaid snags, in the prosecution case, hence, did not, at all render the prosecution case, to falter merely for the Investigating Officer concerned, failing to associate independent witnesses’, in the relevant proceedings. 20. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, does not, suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. The impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. 21. However, the learned counsel for the appellants/convicts, makes a prayer, at this stage, for reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants/convicts. He submits that the aforesaid submission hence being amenable to acceptance, given the convict, being a young person, and, his hence being enabled to reform himself. The aforesaid submission is accepted. The sentence of imprisonment imposed, upon, the appellant/convict is reduced, from, eight years’ rigorous imprisonment to, two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine, imposed upon the appellant/convict is, reduced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The period of detention already undergone by him, is ordered to be set off, from the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. 22. Consequently, the sentences of imprisonment and of fine, imposed upon the convict, is to the extent above, hence, modified. Records be sent back forthwith.