JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 02.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS” Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2016 a Police Party from Police Station Kullu headed by ASI Dinesh Kumar along with HHC Tikam Ram and HHC Shyam Dass left the Police Station at about 3.30 a.m. in Government vehicle No. HP-34A-9986 driven by C. Dinesh Kumar and reached “Cheela Mour” on Bhunter-Manikarn Road at about 4.20 a.m. The purpose was to lay a “NAKA” for general checking of traffic as well as persons. Immediately after having laid “NAKA” the police party noticed a person approaching them on foot from the side of place known as Jari. He was carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing the police party, such person turned back and ran towards a trail. He was apprehended by the police officials. On being questioned regarding contents of the bag, he got perplexed and started shivering. The person could not satisfactorily explain his conduct and thus raised suspicion in the mind of Police officials. The Investigating Officer ASI Dinesh Kumar then suspected the appellant having possession of some incriminating material. The area was isolated, therefore, HHC Tikam Ram was deputed to search for some independent witnesses. He returned after about twenty minutes and disclosed that none could be found at that hour of the night. In the given circumstances, the Investigating Officer ASI Dinesh Kumar associated HHC Shyam Dass and HHC Tikam Ram as witnesses. Firstly, he allowed his personal search to be made by the appellant in presence of aforesaid witnesses and thereafter the bag of appellant was searched. On search, six packets of rectangular shape, containing black coloured substance were recovered from the bag, which were wrapped in polythene tape. On being smelled, the substance was found to be cannabis/charas. The contraband so recovered was weighed and found 3 Kg. 55 grams. On search, six packets of rectangular shape, containing black coloured substance were recovered from the bag, which were wrapped in polythene tape. On being smelled, the substance was found to be cannabis/charas. The contraband so recovered was weighed and found 3 Kg. 55 grams. The recovered contraband was then placed in the same polythene packet and was thereafter sealed in a cloth parcel. Ten seals of ‘H’ were placed on the parcel. Facsimile of the sample seal was obtained on a separate piece of cloth. NCB-1 form in triplicate was filled by ASI Dinesh Kumar. Necessary memos were prepared and copies thereof were supplied to the appellant. A “Rukka” was prepared and sent for registration of FIR to Police Station, Kullu through HHC Shyam Dass. FIR No. 10 of 2016 was registered. Photographs, evidencing proceedings conducted on spot, were taken. Appellant was arrested and information of his arrest was given to his wife. The case property was then produced by the Investigating Officer to SHO, who re-sealed the same with four seals with impression ‘T’. The facsimile of seal was preserved and the case property was deposited in Malkhana. 3. On 29.01.2016 the case property was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis through (PW-2) C. Sanjeev Kumar No. 156. The case property along with the report of SFSL, Junga was brought back to the Police Station by (PW-3) HHC Lal Singh No. 219 on 17.02.2016. The challan was presented. The appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu on 20.06.2016. 4. The prosecution examined total nine witnesses to prove its case. The statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence. Learned Special Judge-II, Kullu proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellant vide judgment impugned in the present appeal, as noticed above. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. The material evidence pointing towards innocence of appellant has been ignored. The appellant was not connected with the alleged offence in any manner and the quality and volume of prosecution evidence lacked in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The material evidence pointing towards innocence of appellant has been ignored. The appellant was not connected with the alleged offence in any manner and the quality and volume of prosecution evidence lacked in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. It has also been contended that the entire case of prosecution is shrouded under shadow of doubt and the appellant deserves the benefit thereof. A specific defence has been raised that the appellant, in fact, was sitting at bus-stand Kullu and the police had found an unclaimed bag under the bench on which he was sitting. The police confronted him about the bag and appellant had clearly disowned the same. Nevertheless, the police falsely implicated the appellant by foisting a false case. As per the appellant, no trustworthy evidence was placed on record to connect the appellant with the offence. There were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence which rendered such evidence doubtful. It has further been pointed out that in the arrest memo, Ex.PW-8/C, there is a cutting in the figure denoting time of arrest which again casts doubt on the prosecution story. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. The fact regarding recovery of contraband from appellant and the events preceding as well as succeeding thereto have been deposed by (PW-7) HHC Shyam Dass and (PW-8) ASI Dinesh Kumar. It has been stated by these witnesses that on 27.1.2016 the police party including (PW-8) ASI Dinesh Kumar, (PW-7) HHC Shyam Dass along with HHC Tikam Ram (not examined as witness) had laid a Naka at Cheela Mour at about 4.20 A.M. Appellant was apprehended by them and on his personal search, cannabis/charas weighing 3 kg. 55 grams was recovered from the bag carried by him in his hand. Before conducting the personal search of the appellant, the Investigating Officer ASI Dinesh Kumar (PW-8) had offered his own personal search to the appellant. Memo Ex.PW-7/A in respect of personal search of the appellant was prepared. Another memo of recovery and seizure of cannabis/charas Ex.PW-7/O was prepared. (PW-8) ASI Dinesh Kumar prepared the “Rukka” Ex.PW-7/E and sent the same to Police Station, Kullu for registration of case through (PW-7) HHC Shyam Dass. Memo Ex.PW-7/A in respect of personal search of the appellant was prepared. Another memo of recovery and seizure of cannabis/charas Ex.PW-7/O was prepared. (PW-8) ASI Dinesh Kumar prepared the “Rukka” Ex.PW-7/E and sent the same to Police Station, Kullu for registration of case through (PW-7) HHC Shyam Dass. On receipt of “Rukka” FIR No. 10/2016 dated 27.01.2016 (Ext.PW-9/A) was registered at Police Station, Kullu at 8.15 A.M. The appellant was arrested and arrest memo Ex.PW-8/C (Ex.DB) was prepared. The police party returned to the Police Station along with the appellant. The seized contraband was produced before the SHO, who re-sealed the seized contraband with 4 seals having impression-T. Facsimile was obtained vide memo Ex.PW-9/C and the case property was handed over to HC Gajender Pal No. 33 for deposit in the Malkhana. An entry in Malkhana register evidencing the deposit of case property in Malkhana is Ex.PW-6/A. 8. Special Report Ex.PW-1/A was submitted to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu on 29.01.2016 at 11.00 A.M. An endorsement to this effect is recorded in the Special Report (Ex.PW-1/A) at encircle Ex.PW-1/B. An entry in Special Report register has been proved on record as Ex.PW-1/C. The case property was sent on 29.01.2016 to SFSL, Junga along with NCB-I form, in triplicate, seizure memo, copy of FIR and sample seals “H’ and “T” through C. Sanjeev Kumar No. 156 (PW-2). The case property after chemical analysis along with report of SFSL, Junga was brought back to the Police Station on 17.02.2016 by HHC Lal Singh No. 219. The examination report of SFSL, Junga is Ex.PW-8/D. 9. The prosecution has also proved on record copies of various Daily Diary Reports (for short “DDR”) recorded at Police Station, Kullu viz. DDR No. 03 (Ex.PW-5/A) at 3.30 a.m., DDR No. 012 (Ex.PW-4/A) and DDR No. 014 (Ex.PW-4/B) dated 27.01.2016 recorded at 9.44 a.m. and 10.10 a.m. respectively. The CCTN Certificates with respect to DDR No. 03 (Ex.PW-5/A), is Ext.PW-5/B and in respect of DDR No. 012 (Ex.PW-4/A) and DDR No. 014 (Ex.PW-4/B) is Ex.PW-4/C. 10. The perusal of DDR No. 03 (Ex.PW-5/A) reveals that the factum of police party leaving the Police Station, Kullu at 3.30 a.m. on 27.01.2016 for laying “NAKA” at Charod Nallah was recorded. This evidence has not been seriously challenged on behalf of the appellant save and except by putting a general suggestion that the report was fabricated. The perusal of DDR No. 03 (Ex.PW-5/A) reveals that the factum of police party leaving the Police Station, Kullu at 3.30 a.m. on 27.01.2016 for laying “NAKA” at Charod Nallah was recorded. This evidence has not been seriously challenged on behalf of the appellant save and except by putting a general suggestion that the report was fabricated. Similarly, the entries made in DDR No. 012 (Ex.PW-4/A) and DDR No. 014 (Ex.PW-4/B), have not been seriously contested by the appellant. Vide Ex.PW-4/A, which recorded the factum of Police party reporting back at Police Station, Kullu as well as submission of the seized contraband along with necessary documents to SHO. Ex.PW-4/B recorded the proceedings of re-sealing of case property by the SHO and also the handing over of seized contraband in the custody of MHC for its deposit in Malkhana. The time of preparation of Rukka (Ex.PW-7/C) is 7.15 a.m. 11. PW-7 and PW-8, who were spot witnesses, while making their respective statements on oath before learned Trail Court, remained in unison. From the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing substantial could be elicited. Noticeably, in cross-examination it was suggested to both these witnesses that the contraband was found, by the Police, lying unattended at Kullu bus-stand at about 9.00 p.m. on 26.01.2016. Since the appellant was found near the contraband, he was suspected and then falsely implicated. In answer to Question No. 31 of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant stated as under: “Answer: I am innocent. In fact on 26.01.2016, I had come to Kullu to attend the function of 26th January. After attending the function in the evening time at about 9:00 p.m. I was in Bus Stand Kullu waiting for the bus to go home. I was sitting on the bench. Police officials came there and found one unclaimed bag underneath the Bench where I was sitting. Police inquired about the ownership of that bag from me as well as from other passengers present there. I and others disowned the ownership of the bag. The police opened the bag and found black substance therein. The police disclosed that it is Charas. Thereafter, the police brought me to Police Station by stating that since the bag was found underneath the bench where I was sitting so they wanted to make further inquiry from me. I and others disowned the ownership of the bag. The police opened the bag and found black substance therein. The police disclosed that it is Charas. Thereafter, the police brought me to Police Station by stating that since the bag was found underneath the bench where I was sitting so they wanted to make further inquiry from me. In the night time they prepared the documents and other proceedings in the police station and in the morning of 27.01.2016 at about 6:00 a.m. I was taken to left bank where the police officials took some photographs. Police made a false case of 27.01.2016 of morning time. In fact, police brought me to PS on 26.01.2016 at about 9.30 p.m.” 12. The fact that the appellant had taken a specific defence, as noticed above, will not absolve the prosecution from its obligation of discharging the burden to prove guilt of appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence, we find that the prosecution has been able to discharge the requisite burden. There is nothing on record which may cast shadow of doubt on prosecution story. The testimonies of PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 have not been shaken as is evident from the perusal of cross-examination. PW-7 HHC Shyam Dass and PW-8 ASI Dinesh Kumar have been consistent in their depositions by narrating sequence of events that had taken place. Definitely, the witnesses cannot be expected to give parrot like version. The fact that the statements of the spot witnesses were recorded after a gap of more than 18 months, itself negates the possibility of the witnesses remembering the happening of events photogenically especially when the witnesses are police officials and have to deal with the investigations of various cases on day-to-day basis. Still as noticed above, no material contradiction can be culled out from the statements of these witnesses. It is also noticeable from the cross-examination conducted on the prosecution witnesses that they had stuck to their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as none of the witnesses has been confronted with their previous statements so recorded, meaning thereby that the prosecution witnesses had not improved their versions while deposing before the Court. 13. In view of this matter, it is to be seen whether the appellant has been able to probabilise his defence. 13. In view of this matter, it is to be seen whether the appellant has been able to probabilise his defence. From cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, nothing could be extracted so as to lend some credence to defence raised by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to document i.e. the arrest memo Ex.PW-8/C where at encircle “A” and “B” there appears to be overwriting on the figure depicting time of arrest. Undoubtedly, there is overwriting on the figure depicting time of arrest in aforesaid document, but there is nothing on record to suggest that such overwriting would have materially affected the investigation. It is also not inferable from the record that such overwriting was done with some ulterior motive. As per argument of learned counsel for the appellant, the original figure ‘6’ has been overwritten as ‘9’. Assuming the same to be correct, we are of the view that such overwriting, though not warranted, may have been done for more than one reasons. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution witnesses for the discrepancies that has crept in document Ex.PW-8/C (Ex.DB) but this fact alone cannot be taken to be sufficient to dislodge the prosecution version, otherwise duly proved on record. Assumingly, figure ‘6’ was overwritten as ‘9’ only reflects the change recorded in the timing of arrest of the appellant. The document reveals that the time recorded therein relates to morning hours as each and every entry of time recorded therein is succeeded by words “a.m.” or morning. Even at 6.00 a.m. the appellant was with the police party, therefore, in our considered view, the wrong recording of time of arrest either initially or subsequently is not going to affect the merits of the case. The link evidence of the case has remained un-shattered. The proper sealing of the effects of recovery, its re-sealing, timely prescription of NCB forms, submission of special report, secured custody of case property, its safe and secured transmission to and from SFSL, Junga has duly been proved. In fact, no challenge has been laid to this part of the evidence on behalf of the defence save and except the general denial. 14. In fact, no challenge has been laid to this part of the evidence on behalf of the defence save and except the general denial. 14. Another argument addressed on behalf of appellant is that the spot of alleged recovery was about 15 Kms away from the Police Station and PW-7 could not be expected to have travelled the distance along with Rukka on foot. He might have used some conveyance and if it was so, it was wrong on part of prosecution witnesses to say that no independent witness was available on spot. This argument deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the appellant was apprehended at 4.20 A.M. and recovery was effected immediately thereafter, whereas the Rukka was prepared at 7.10. A.M. whereafter PW-7 left the place for Police Station. Hence, it cannot be said that presence of any independent person at spot after 7.10. A.M. can be sufficient to assume that such witness was available at the time of recovery of contraband will be preposterous. 15. As against the aforesaid evidence, the appellant has not led any evidence to prove his alleged presence at Kullu on 26.01.2016 more specifically at Kullu bus-stand at 9.00 p.m. There is no corroboration to the version of appellant in this respect. It is also not comprehensible that in case the version put-forth by the appellant was correct, why the police would not have registered the case there and then at 9.00 p.m. on 26.01.2016 at bus-stand Kullu. There are no reasons appearing from record to infer any ulterior motive of police in projecting the place, mode and manner of recovery different than what had actually happened. The place i.e. bus-stand Kullu falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kullu and the place where recovery has been effected in the instant case also falls within the jurisdiction of same Police Station, therefore, there cannot be any reason for the police to have deferred the registration of case for next morning especially by subjecting themselves to extreme cold condition as usually prevail during last week of the month of January in the area in question. 16. We have also not been able to find any fault or infirmity in appreciation of evidence by learned trial Court. The findings and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court are borne out from the material proved on record. 17. 16. We have also not been able to find any fault or infirmity in appreciation of evidence by learned trial Court. The findings and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court are borne out from the material proved on record. 17. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications if any.