JUDGMENT : By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 29-S/7 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS” Act) and sentence order dated 03.11.2017 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.03.2016 PW-11 ASI Partap Singh, PW-5 HC Dalip Singh, PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar and PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram, No. 837 left the Police Station, Chopal at about 6.00 P.M. towards place known as ‘Dhabas Kenchi’ in official vehicle No. HP07A-0686 with C. Kedar Singh No. 391 as driver on routine patrol duty. DDR No. 15 Ex.PW-2/A was recorded in this behalf. The police party reached ‘Dhabas Kenchi’ and at about 7.45 P.M. noticed the appellant approaching ‘Dhabas Kenchi’. He was holding a bag, which he threw on noticing the police and tried to run away from the spot. The appellant was apprehended by the police. The bag thrown by him was checked and charas weighing 1 K.G. 900 grams was recovered therefrom. The bag also contained one weighing scale with one weight of 500 grams, two weights of 200 grams and one weight of 100 grams. The identification memo Ex. PW-5/A was prepared. The police had found PW-1 Mangat Ram at the spot sitting in rain shelter, who was also associated as a witness. The recovered charas was re- packed in the same bag alongwith the weighing scale and weights, which further was sealed in a cloth parcel with six seals bearing impression ‘T’. The facsimile of sample seal was preserved. Recovery and seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B alongwith facsimile of specimen seal Ex.PW-5/C were prepared. The relevant columns of NCB form Ex.PW-11/A were filled on spot. Rukka Ex.PW-11/B was prepared and was sent to Police Station, Chopal for registration of FIR through PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar alongwith NCB Form and case property. 3. The facsimile of sample seal was preserved. Recovery and seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B alongwith facsimile of specimen seal Ex.PW-5/C were prepared. The relevant columns of NCB form Ex.PW-11/A were filled on spot. Rukka Ex.PW-11/B was prepared and was sent to Police Station, Chopal for registration of FIR through PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar alongwith NCB Form and case property. 3. FIR Ex.PW-12/A was registered on the basis of Rukka Ex.PW-11/B. PW-12 SHO/SI Gulam Akbar carried the re-sealing proceedings by placing the sealed cloth parcel received from the spot in another cloth parcel. Six seals of impression ‘A’ were affixed. The certificate of re-sealing Ex.PW-12/D was issued. The case property was handed over to MHC PW-9 HC Sohan Singh. 4. The appellant was formally arrested by PW-11 ASI Partap Singh on the spot vide arrest memo Ex.PW-11/E. Spot map Ex.PW-11/C was also prepared. Special report Ex.PW-3/A was prepared by PW-11 ASI Partap Singh and was sent to SDPO, Chopal on 18.3.2016 through PW-3 C. Atul Kumar. The SDPO, Chopal was not in station, hence the special report was delivered to him at Police Headquarter at Shimla on 18.3.2016 at 4.50 P.M. An abstract of the entry made in this behalf in the relevant register is Ex.PW-3/B. 5. The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis. As per report Ex.PW-11/F of SFSL, Junga, the substance examined by it was found to be extract of cannabis and sample of Charas. 6. On completion of investigation, challan was prepared. Prosecution examined total 12 witnesses. PW-5 HC Dalip Singh, PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar and PW-11 ASI Partap Singh were examined as spot witnesses. PW-1 Mangat Ram was examined as an independent witness. PW-3 C. Atul Kumar, PW-7 HC Preetam Singh and PW-10 Munish Dadhwal, SDPO, Chopal were examined to prove the despatch and receipt of special report. PW-2 C. Naresh Kumar was examined to prove the DDR No.15 dated 17.3.2016 Ex.PW-2/A. PW-4 C. Subhash Chand was examined to prove the transit and safe custody of case property alongwith relevant documents from Police Station, Chopal to SFSL, Junga on 19.3.2016. PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram was examined to prove the transit and safe custody of contraband from SFSL, Junga to Police Station, Chopal. PW-9 HC Sohan Singh was examined to prove the safe custody of contraband in the Malkhana of Police Station, Chopal. PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram was examined to prove the transit and safe custody of contraband from SFSL, Junga to Police Station, Chopal. PW-9 HC Sohan Singh was examined to prove the safe custody of contraband in the Malkhana of Police Station, Chopal. PW-12 SI Gulam Akbar was examined to prove the receipt and re-sealing of seized contraband in Police Station, Chopal. He also proved the deposit of the seized contraband after re-sealing with PW-9 HC Sohan Singh. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 7. We have heard Sh. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. Kamal Kant, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State and have gone through the records of the case. 8. The offences under the NDPS Act are of serious nature and attract severe punishment. It is more than settled that more serious the offence, more heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution is to discharge its burden by proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts by way of legal evidence which should be cogent and convincing. 9. Coming to the facts of the case, as per DDR No.15 Ex.PW-2/A, in addition to PW-11 ASI Partap Singh, PW-5 HC Dalip Singh, PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar, PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram No.837 and C. Kedar Singh No. 391 had left the Police Station on patrol duty to ‘Dhabas Kenchi’. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 have stated that HHC Ratti Ram No. 837 was with them at spot. HHC Ratti Ram has been examined as PW-8. He did not utter even a single word about his alleged association with police party at ‘Dhabas Kenchi’ on 17.3.2016. Nothing has been stated by this witness about the apprehension of the appellant, recovery, seizure of contraband or any other proceedings conducted on spot on 17.3.2016. He merely stated that he had brought the report of SFSL, Junga alongwith the parcel containing contraband from Junga to Police Station, Chopal on 30.4.2016. In cross-examination, this witness specifically stated that except as stated by him in the Court, he knew nothing about the case. This clearly implies that PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram was not either part of the police party or present at ‘Dhabas Kenchi’. It being so, the document Ex.PW-2/A i.e. DDR No.15 is falsified. In cross-examination, this witness specifically stated that except as stated by him in the Court, he knew nothing about the case. This clearly implies that PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram was not either part of the police party or present at ‘Dhabas Kenchi’. It being so, the document Ex.PW-2/A i.e. DDR No.15 is falsified. Even the statements of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 are falsified to the effect that HHC Ratti Ram was with them. Not only this, even the recovery and seizure memo Ex.PW-5/B, Rukka Ex.PW-11/B and special report Ex.PW-3/A are falsified as in all such documents the presence of HHC Ratti Ram alongwith police party was shown at spot. 10. As per prosecution case, PW-1 Mangat Ram was available as an independent witness at the time of apprehension of appellant and recovery of contraband from him. PW-1 Mangat Ram was stated to be present in the rain shelter at the relevant time. However, this version of prosecution is also falsified by the statement of PW-1, who categorically stated that he was a member of BDC, Chopal. On 17/18.3.2016, he received a call from Police Station, Chopal at about 8.00 P.M. informing him that Charas had been recovered from his area. He had visited the Police Station, Chopal on next morning and he was made to sign certain documents. He did not support the version of prosecution that he was present at ‘Dhabas Kenchi’ and the contraband was recovered from appellant in his presence. Despite his lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be elicited from him. This also makes the prosecution case doubtful. Though, it is not necessary that without support of independent witness, the prosecution case cannot stand, however, for arriving at such conclusion, the evidence led by the prosecution must appear to be convincing and trustworthy. 11. On minute examination of the spot witnesses, it is found that they have separate versions to make in respect of material particulars. As per PW-5, they had checked many vehicles before apprehension of the appellant. PW-6 stated that no vehicles were checked between 6.00 P.M. to 7.45 P.M. According to PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar, ‘Dhabas’ was one kilometer away from the spot, whereas PW-5 mentioned the spot to be 14 KM away from ‘Dhabas’. As per PW-5, they had checked many vehicles before apprehension of the appellant. PW-6 stated that no vehicles were checked between 6.00 P.M. to 7.45 P.M. According to PW-6 C. Dinesh Kumar, ‘Dhabas’ was one kilometer away from the spot, whereas PW-5 mentioned the spot to be 14 KM away from ‘Dhabas’. PW-5 had contradicted PW-6 by saying that there was no Dhara (shed) near the spot, but PW-6 categorically stated that there was a Dhara in existence near the spot. Even the site plan Ex.PW-11/C describes the existence of Dhara adjacent to the rain shelter on the spot. PW-6 stated that photographs were clicked by Investigating Officer at the time of conducting recovery proceedings, but as per PW-5 HC Dalip Singh and PW-11 ASI Partap Singh, no photographs were clicked as it was dark and raining. 12. PW-6 and PW-11 gave the version that they did not give their personal search to accused, but, personal search of accused was carried. PW-5 stated otherwise that the police party had given personal search to the appellant, but his personal search was not carried. PW-11 even stated that the memo regarding personal search of the accused was prepared, but it was not found on record. The Investigating Officer of the case, who held the rank of ASI, cannot be heard of making such absurd statement. 13. PW-6 even could not remember as to who had prepared the seizure memo. As per this witness, he left the spot for Police Station alongwith Rukka in a private vehicle, but in contradiction PW-11 stated that PW-6 had left the spot for Police Station on foot. An endorsement found on Rukka Ex.PW-11/B, mentioned the distance between the spot i.e. ‘Dhabas Kenchi’ and Police Station as 14 KM. That being so, it is difficult to understand that why PW- 6 had to leave the spot on foot to travel a distance of 14 KM when police vehicle was available. Further, PW-6 also could not provide the details of vehicle in which he had taken lift and travelled to Police Station. 14. Another fact emerging on record is that a copy of seizure memo Ex.PW-5/B was handed over to appellant on spot. The said document has been exhibited as Ex.DA on record, which appears to be a photocopy. PW-11 has also admitted in his cross- examination that Ex. DA was the photocopy. 14. Another fact emerging on record is that a copy of seizure memo Ex.PW-5/B was handed over to appellant on spot. The said document has been exhibited as Ex.DA on record, which appears to be a photocopy. PW-11 has also admitted in his cross- examination that Ex. DA was the photocopy. There is no explanation that what was the source for preparation of a photocopy on spot, which according to prosecution was secluded place. 15. Thus, from the above analysis, it is evidently clear that the evidence brought by the prosecution is shaky and not convincing at all. In the given circumstances, the fact that PW-1 had not supported the prosecution version also becomes relevant. An inference can be drawn that PW-1 was sought to be examined as a procured witness. The contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 are not of such nature which can be ignored. The incident was of 17.3.2016 and the prosecution witnesses were examined in September of the same year. There was not a very long lapse of time between the incident and the examination of the witnesses so as to infer that the witnesses might have become forgetful. PW-8 HHC Ratti Ram was not present on spot, however, he was shown to be part of the police party. It appears that he was kept as a reserved witness. It cannot be believed that PW-5 and PW-6, who were allegedly the police officials closely associated at the time of recovery of contraband and spot investigation carried thereafter would be making different statements in respect of material particulars, such as, personal search of accused as well as the police party, checking of the vehicles, distance of spot from Dhabas, existence of Dhara, clicking of photographs etc. It only reflects that they were not the truthful witnesses. 16. The learned trial Court has failed to take notice of the weakness in the prosecution evidence detailed above. Learned Special Judge has clearly erred in holding that no contradictions were found in the statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses so as to entertain the suspicion. In such circumstances, learned Special Judge has clearly erred in convicting the appellant by ignoring the very cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. Learned Special Judge has clearly erred in holding that no contradictions were found in the statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses so as to entertain the suspicion. In such circumstances, learned Special Judge has clearly erred in convicting the appellant by ignoring the very cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 31.10.2017 and sentence order dated 03.11.2017 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 29-S/7 of 2016, are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He is ordered to be released from custody if not required in any other case. Registry to prepare the release warrant forthwith. 18. In view of the provisions of Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Parkash Chand S/o Sh. Chet Ram, is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, before the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for the period of six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 19. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.