JUDGMENT : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, J. Appellant, is in appeal against the judgment dated 09.10.2017, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts, on which prosecution based its case are as under: (i) On 22.01.2016, a police party lead by PW-11 ASI Swarn Singh, PW-10 HC Sheesh Ram, PW-9 HHC Man Chand and HHG Saran pat was on routine patrol duty. (ii) At about 9:00 PM, at place known as Zero-point Dhaugi, appellant was noticed by police party, who got perplexed and was seen throwing a bag out of his pocket. (iii) Appellant was apprehended. Police party entertained suspicion. Despite efforts no independent witness could be found. PW-9 HHC Man Chand and PW-10 HHC Sheesh Ram were associated as witnesses. The bag thrown by appellant was checked and charas weighing 1 kg 600 grams was found. (iv) The recovered charas was placed inside the same carry bag from which it was found and the said carry bag was placed inside a cloth parcel, which was sealed with eight seals of seal impressions “T”. NCB form Ext. PW5/A was filled in triplicate by PW-11 ASI Swarn Singh. Seizure memo Ext. PW9/B was prepared. “Rukka” Ext. PW8/A was prepared and sent to Police Station Banjar through PW-9 HHC Man Chand for registration of FIR. (v) FIR Ext. PW8/B was registered. Appellant was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ext. PW-10/F. Spot map Ext. PW-11/A was prepared. Photographs were clicked on the spot and were later developed as Ext. PW-10/A to PW-10/E. Personal search of the appellant was conducted vide memo Ext. PW-10/G. (vi) The case property along with appellant were taken to Police Station Banjar and handed over to PW-8, SHO ASI Anant Ram, who resealed the cloth parcel containing contraband with four seals having impression “N”. Columns 9 to 11 of NCB form were filled. The case property was handed over to PW-5, MHC Alam Gir, to be kept in “Malkhana”. Columns 9 to 11 of NCB form were filled. The case property was handed over to PW-5, MHC Alam Gir, to be kept in “Malkhana”. (vii) On 26.01.2016, the case property was sent by PW-5 MHC Alam Gir to SFSL Junga for chemical examination through PW-7 C. Sonu Ram. (viii) On 19.02.2016, PW-1, HHC Bahadur Singh brought the contraband along with SFSL report to the police station and handed over the same to PW-5 MHC Alam Gir for safe custody. (ix) On 23.01.2016, special report Ext. PW3/A was sent to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu, H.P., who after making his endorsement handed over the same to PW-3 HC Nirat Singh for record. Necessary entry was made in the relevant register Ext. PW3/B. On chemical examination, substance recovered from the appellant was found to be Charas/Cannabis. On completion of investigation, the challan was filed. 3. Learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, charged the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of ND&PS Act. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant did not lead any defence evidence. On completion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 5. Along with memorandum and grounds of appeal, the appellant has also preferred an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed for the just decision of the case and the appellant/convict be allowed to produce additional evidence in defense and also may kindly be allowed to re-examine/cross-examine three witnesses for the just decision of the case and for this kindness the appellant shall every pray." 6. Keeping in view the prayer made in aforesaid application an appraisal of the entire material on record will be required, therefore, we propose to dispose of the main appeal as well as the application by this common judgment. 7. We have heard Mr. C.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record. 8. PW-9 HHC Man Chand, PW-10 HHC Sheesh Ram and PW-11 ASI Swarn Singh are the spot witnesses. These witnesses have deposed in unison regarding the sequence of events those had taken place on spot. C.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record. 8. PW-9 HHC Man Chand, PW-10 HHC Sheesh Ram and PW-11 ASI Swarn Singh are the spot witnesses. These witnesses have deposed in unison regarding the sequence of events those had taken place on spot. As per them, they alongwith HHG Saran Pat left police post Sainj at about 7:30 PM in relation with patrol and detection. DDR No. 17, Ext. PW2/A was recorded in this behalf. At about 9:00 PM, when they reached at place Zero point Dhaugi, appellant was noticed coming from the side of Sainj. He got perplexed and immediately took out some article from his jacket and threw it on the road and started walking back briskly. Appellant was apprehended. He could not explain his conduct satisfactorily. PW-9 HHC Man Chand was sent towards Sainj to look for independent witnesses but he remained unsuccessful. During this period, no vehicle crossed the spot. The bag thrown by the appellant on the road was checked. It contained black coloured substance which on smell was found to be charas. On weighing the weight of the recovered charas was found to be 1kg 600grams. The charas was placed inside the same bag from which it was recovered and the said bag was further placed in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with eight seals having impression “T”. NCB form Ext. PW5/A was filled. Facsimile of seal of impression “T” was preserved on a separate cloth Ext.PW9/A. Seizure memo Ext. PW9/B was prepared. “Rukka” Ext. PW8/A was prepared and sent to police station for the purposes of registration of FIR through PW-9 HHC Man Chand. FIR Ext. PW8/B was registered. Spot map Ext. PW11/A was prepared. Appellant was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ext. PW10/F. Recovered contraband along with accused were forwarded to SHO ASI Anant Ram at Police Station Banjar. Resealing proceedings were conducted. The contraband was handed over to PW-5, MHC Alam Bir for safe custody in “Malkhana”. 9. All the spot witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at length. However, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their versions. PW-9 to PW-11 successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. No material contradictions can be noticed from their depositions. 10. The contraband was handed over to PW-5, MHC Alam Bir for safe custody in “Malkhana”. 9. All the spot witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at length. However, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their versions. PW-9 to PW-11 successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. No material contradictions can be noticed from their depositions. 10. We are not oblivious to the mandate of law specifying duty of the Court to minutely scan the prosecution evidence in cases attracting stringent punishment. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2020) 16 SCC 709, it has been held as under: - “Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage, the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.” 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate, we have examined the statements of spot witnesses with absolute care and caution and have found these witnesses worth credence. The recovery of 1kg 600grams of charas has duly been proved from exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. 12. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that non association of the independent witnesses was a mere pretense. Be that as it may, in our considered view, non-association of the independent witnesses will not affect the outcome of the case for the reason that the recovery of contraband from the appellant has duly been proved. Additionally, the entire link evidence also provides corroboration to the hypothesis in favour of the prosecution case. 13. Further, it is trite law that non association of independent witnesses is always not fatal to the prosecution case. In Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2020 (12) Scale 138 , it has been held as under:- "19. It would be gainsaid that lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. 13. Further, it is trite law that non association of independent witnesses is always not fatal to the prosecution case. In Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2020 (12) Scale 138 , it has been held as under:- "19. It would be gainsaid that lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. However, such omissions cast an added duty on Courts to adopt a greater degree of care while scrutinizing the testimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of a successful conviction." Thus, since there is nothing on record to discredit the version of prosecution witnesses, non-association of independent witnesses will not help the cause of the appellant. 14. There is nothing on record to suggest that the case property was tampered with. PW-5, HC Alam Gir was the MHC at Police Station Banjar. As per his deposition, the contraband remained in safe custody in the “Malkhana”. PW-7 C. Sonu Ram also proved the safe custody of contraband during its transit from Police Station Banjar to SFSL Junga. Similarly, the safe custody of the case property during its transit from SFSL Junga to Police Station Banjar on 19.02.2016 has also been proved by PW-1 HHC Bahadur Singh. The special report Ext. PW3/A was prepared and sent by PW-11, ASI Swarn Singh on 23.01.2016 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu. Its receipt has duly been proved by PW-3 HC Nirat Singh. Document Ext. PW3/B is the extract of concerned register which evidenced the receipt of special report Ext. PW3/A. 15. The due execution of NCB form Ext. PW5/A has been proved by PW-11, ASI Swarn Singh and PW-8, ASI Anant Ram. The preparation and receipt etc. of “Rukka” Ext. PW8/A has also been proved. Taking wholesome view of the entire evidence, we find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge and the same are affirmed. Cr.MP No. 321 of 2018 Appellant has made a prayer to lead additional evidence to prove the defence of the appellant to the effect that he was apprehended by the police at Sainj instead of Zero point Dhaugi and contraband found unattended on the road was planted against the appellant. It is contended that the appellant could not lead defence evidence as he was in custody and could not communicate with his counsel. It is contended that the appellant could not lead defence evidence as he was in custody and could not communicate with his counsel. The wife of the appellant, who was taking care of the appellant's case, was not so conversant with intricacies. As per appellant, the tower location of the appellant at the relevant time as well as that of the police personnel will clinch the issue. A prayer for further cross-examination of the spot witnesses i.e. PW-9 to PW-11 has also been made. The claim of the appellant has been contested by respondent-State. 2. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-9 to PW-11 (spot witnesses) reveal that specific questions were put to them to the effect that the appellant was apprehended by police at Sainj at 9:00 PM on 22.01.2016 and the contraband found unattended on the road was planted against him. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., appellant has also stated as under in answer to question No. 25:- "Ans:- I am innocent. I was on the bus stand Sainj where I was waiting for the bus and one abandoned bag was lying there and the police made the false case of this bag on me." Thus, the plea of appellant that he had not instructed his counsel with respect to the aforesaid defence is falsified. Appellant had omitted to lead defence evidence at his option. It is not understandable, in case there was lack of communication between appellant and his counsel, how the prosecution witnesses could be cross-examined in the manner as aforesaid. Appellant cannot be allowed to fill-up the lacunae at this stage. Therefore, we find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. 16. In light of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction of appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentence as imposed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P. against the appellant, is affirmed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.