JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 1.4.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge-II, Sirmaur at Nahan in CIS Case No. 158 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Farida Begum, arising out of police challan under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) in FIR No. 227 of 2013, dated 25.6.2013, registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record. 3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 25.6.2013, seven Police officials of Special Investigating Unit (SIU), during lunch hours, proceeded from Nahan on patrolling. H.C. Hari Chand, constables Mukesh Kumar, Kailash Panwar, Vikramjeet and Rajinder were in private car of Hari Chand, whereas Amit and Rupinder were on Motor Cycle. They reached Vishwakarma Chowk at about 5:55 P.M. where H.C. Hari Chand received a secret information that one Farida Begum W/o Rashid R/o Village Sainwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. was coming on Motor Cycle of her son from Vikasnagar side alongwith contraband (drugs). On the basis of aforesaid information, PW-3 HC Hari Chand reduced the information into writing in the shape of report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and handed over the same to PW-14 Constable Mukesh to deliver it to SDPO, Paonta Sahib. In the report there was request to send one lady constable and a senior Officer on the spot. In response to said request, Dy. SP (Probation) Kuldeep Kumar (PW-10) alongwith PW-2 Lady Constable Suman proceeded to the spot and reached there at 6:30 P.M. 4. After arrival of Dy. SP Kuldep Kumar and Lady Constable Suman, PW-1 Mohd. Inam was associated as independent witness and Naka was laid at Vishwakarma Chowk. At about 6:45 P.M. a Motor Cycle, being driven by a boy with a lady pillion rider, came which was stopped by the Police. On inquiry rider of Motor Cycle disclosed his name Imran S/o Rashid and pillion rider disclosed her name Farida Begum W/o Rashid, both R/o Village Sainwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. the lady was holding a white and black coloured bag in her hand. 5. PW-10 Dy. On inquiry rider of Motor Cycle disclosed his name Imran S/o Rashid and pillion rider disclosed her name Farida Begum W/o Rashid, both R/o Village Sainwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. the lady was holding a white and black coloured bag in her hand. 5. PW-10 Dy. SP Kuldeep Kumar apprised Farida Begum about her right related to her search either from Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer. Farida Begum consented for search by the Police Party. Members of Police Party gave their search to Farida and thereafter Farida was searched by PW-2 Lady Constable Suman. During search from the polythene bag carried by Farida, 27 strips of capsules each containing 24 capsules, total 648 capsules of Dextro Propoxiphen Napsilate were found. Total quantity of drugs in capsules was found to be 64.8 grams. Farida Begum could not produce any permit/license for carrying aforesaid contraband. The contraband was repacked in the same bag and taken in possession as per procedure prescribed under law and NCB Form was filled in triplicate and by sending Rukka to the Police Station FIR was registered. Parcel of capsules, sample seal, NCB Form, Motor Cycle of the accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. On finding sufficient material, Farida was arrested and investigation was completed in accordance with law and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 6. During trial, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, whereas after recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no defence evidence has been produced by Farida. 7. On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of 50,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. Against conviction and sentence present appeal has been preferred. 8. The only independent witness PW-1 Mohd. Inam has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. PW-2 Lady Constable Suman, PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand, PW-4 HHC Rajinder, PW10 Dy. SP Kuldeep Kumar, PW-14 Mukesh, PW-15 Rupinder Kumar are spot prosecution official witnesses. 9. PW-12 Gopal Singh is registered owner of Motor Cycle, who has been examined to prove that Motor Cycle was sold by him to Farida Begum by swearing affidavit. 10. He was declared hostile. PW-2 Lady Constable Suman, PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand, PW-4 HHC Rajinder, PW10 Dy. SP Kuldeep Kumar, PW-14 Mukesh, PW-15 Rupinder Kumar are spot prosecution official witnesses. 9. PW-12 Gopal Singh is registered owner of Motor Cycle, who has been examined to prove that Motor Cycle was sold by him to Farida Begum by swearing affidavit. 10. PW-8 ASI Rattan Singh is a witness of production of affidavits with respect to Motor Cycle by Farida Begum on 5.7.2013. PW-5 Constable Deepak Kumar has recorded the rapat. PW-9 HHG Geeta Ram has taken the report to SDPO sent by Dy. SP (Probation) Kuldeep Kumar on 26.6.2013. PW-6 HHC Narayan Singh is Incharge of Malkhana with whom case property was deposited, who had sent the contraband to FSL through PW-7 HC Kirpa Ram. PW-7 HC Kirpa Ram had delivered the contraband in FSL for chemical analyses. 11. Except PW-1 Mohd. Inam, all witnesses are official witnesses. It is settled law that in absence of enmity or other material indicating planting a false case against accused, official witnesses are also competent and reliable witnesses to convict an accused if version of official witness is found cogent, convincing and reliable. Official witnesses are not to be discarded only on the ground that independent witness has become hostile and there is no other witness except official witnesses. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that despite having no enmity with the accused or personal interest in the case, the official witnesses, who remained associated during investigation, are definitely interested to bring the case to its logical end and conviction of accused. 12. Considering all these factors, statements of official witnesses, though can be relied for convicting an accused, but after subjecting the veracity of official witnesses to close scrutiny with special care and caution. The discrepancies and contradictions which may be minor in case of an independent or witnesses other than official witnesses, but such discrepancies in the deposition of official witnesses may be fatal for the prosecution case, more particularly when deposition of official witnesses creates doubt about the manner and circumstances claimed by the prosecution with respect to incident alleging the recovery of contraband in a particular place and manner. 13. In present case PW-1 Mohd. 13. In present case PW-1 Mohd. Inam in his examination-inchief has admitted that Police had apprehended one Motor Cycle alongwith a lady near Vishwakarma Chowk where he was called by the Police at 7:00 P.M. and his signatures on some written documents were obtained and he had signed the said documents at the instance of Police. Further that Farida Begum was standing nearby the Motor Cycle. However, he denied that a boy on Motor Cycle came on the spot and anything was recovered from Farida in his presence. Except admitting signatures on the documents and presence in photographs, he has denied the suggestions put by learned Public Prosecutor, after declaring the said witness hostile, leading to no conclusive proof of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 14. For no spot independent witness, the entire case hinges upon veracity of Police officials, especially those who were present on the spot, i.e. PW-2 LC Suman, PW-3 HC Hari Chand, PW-4 HHC Rajender Kumar, PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, PW-14 Constable Mukesh and PW-15 ASI Rupinder. 15. In examination-in-chief all witnesses have deposed in similar fashion, supporting the prosecution case, except with a few differences. However, in cross-examination there are material differences and contradictions having bearing on veracity of prosecution witnesses. 16. According to PW-2 Lady Constable Suman, search of Imran was conducted, whereas according to PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand, search of boy was not conducted. However, according to PW-4 Rajender Kumar search of the body was also conducted. According to PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar search of the body was not conducted. PW-15 ASI Rupinder has also deposed that Police party did not conduct search of the boy who was driving the Motor Cycle. 17. According to PW-2 LC Suman, PW-1 Mohd. Inam was called by PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, whereas according to PW-3 HC Hari Chand it was he who called the independent witness PW-1 and laid Naka. PW-2 LC. Suman had stated that Motor Cycle was stopped by Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, whereas according to PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand all Police officials had stopped the Motor Cycle. According to PW-2 LC Suman, Rukka was scribed by I.O. PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand and investigation was carried by H.C. Hari Chand, whereas other official witnesses and prosecution claim that investigation was carried on by PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar. 18. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, whereas according to PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand all Police officials had stopped the Motor Cycle. According to PW-2 LC Suman, Rukka was scribed by I.O. PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand and investigation was carried by H.C. Hari Chand, whereas other official witnesses and prosecution claim that investigation was carried on by PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar. 18. Admittedly, as per prosecution case, during proceedings on the spot it had become dark. According to PW-2 Lady Constable Suman, proceedings were carried out on the spot by sitting on chairs which were arranged by I.O., but she expressed her ignorance about source wherefrom the chairs were arranged. According to her, I.O. was having torch and there was street light on the spot and proceedings were carried out on Dehradun road near boundary of Vishkarma Temple. 19. PW-3 Head Constable Hari Chand has deposed that Rukka was scribed by Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Chand and investigation was also carried by him and it was dark at the spot and proceedings were carried on the spot by sitting in his car in inside light of car. PW-4 HHC Rajinder Kumar has stated that it was correct that accused Farida did not take personal search of Police Party by touching them. He self stated that they gave their personal search to her, but how and in what manner, he is silent. According to him, contrary to PW-2 LC Suman, PW-1 Mohd. Iman was called by PW-3 H.C. Hari Chand. He has further stated that during completion of proceeding it was dark on the spot and there was no street light at the spot. PW-10 Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar has stated that he conducted the proceedings in the street light at Vishwkarma Chowk and he did so by sitting on the round (Chabutra)/platform of Vishwkarma Chowk. 20. According to PW-14 constable Mukesh, proceedings were completed towards Dehradun road near Chowk adjoining to Vishwkarma Chowk and it was done on the torch light and light coming from the shops and street light, but he has also stated that he did not remember that there was no street light on the spot and further that he did not remember where I.O. and Police Officials were sitting when he returned after submitting information to SDPO. 21. According to PW-15 ASI Rupinder, investigation was conducted by Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, however, documents were prepared by Dy. 21. According to PW-15 ASI Rupinder, investigation was conducted by Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar, however, documents were prepared by Dy. S.P. Kuldeep Kumar and some officials, but he did not remember the name of persons who wrote the documents. According to him at the time of conducting proceedings there were partial day light and after some time it was dark. 22. In the consent memo it has been recorded that Farida was told that she can give her and her bag’s search to some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate also and, according to prosecution, she consented to give search to Police. It has been admitted by every prosecution official witness that residence of Executive Magistrate was at a walking distance of five to ten minutes from the spot, but accused was not taken to any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and for doing so no reason has been assigned. It is not a case where there was possibility of loss of time or it was impossible to reach the Magistrate in reasonable time, but despite that no effort has been made to produce Farida before a Magistrate, particularly when there were male Police Officials in the raiding party, except one lady constable and according to prosecution case, the Police party gave search to Farida. It is not case of the Police party that search of Police party was conducted by son of Farida. 23. It is case of the prosecution that before search of Farida, Police Officials gave their personal search to Farida. As per prosecution case only one lady constable PW-2 Suman was present on the spot and others were male member. Imran, i.e. son of Farida was also present on the spot, but case of prosecution is that search was given to Farida. How and in what manner Farida conducted personal search of Police officials, that too on a Chowk, has not been explained. In fact such plea of prosecution is highly improbable. 24. Admittedly, the Motor Cycle was being driven by Imran S/o Farida. Imran and Farida were travelling together on the Motor Cycle and allegedly they were transporting the drug/contraband, but for the reasons best known to the Police, even in cross-examination, no reason has been explained by the official witnesses for doing so. Imran has neither been arrayed as an accused nor cited as witness, however Motor Cycle being driven by him was taken in possession. Imran has neither been arrayed as an accused nor cited as witness, however Motor Cycle being driven by him was taken in possession. This fact definitely creates doubt about the truthfulness of the official witnesses with respect to circumstances in which Farida has allegedly been apprehended, arrested and subjected to trial for carrying contraband. 25. PW-6 HHC Narayan Singh received the case property in the Malkhana and sent it through Road Certificate (RC) Ex. PW-6/B to State Forensic Laboratory, Junga through PW-7 HC Kirpa Ram. In cross-examination both of them have admitted that RC does not have receipt of receiving the case property/contraband in the State FSL Junga. This fact is contrary to their claim that receipt was obtained on RC itself. It is also noticeable that PW-6 had admitted that there is correction carried out in the column of RC with respect to entry of case property qua received back from FSL Junga. 26. According to prosecution, it took 4-5 hours for completing the proceedings on the spot, meaning thereby Police Party was on the spot till 10:30-11:00 P.M, therefore, definitely it had become dark. There are conflicting depositions of official witnesses with respect to manner and light used for completing the proceedings on the spot. It is also noticeable that Police Station was at 10 minutes walking distance, in such a circumstance in absence of availability of proper light on the spot, for what reason proceedings were completed on the spot, is not understandable, particularly when, except one witness, all witnesses were official witness and their statements could have been recorded in the Police Station located at a walking distance of few minutes. 27. Contradictory claims of official witnesses present on the spot, referred supra are definitely creating doubt about the prosecution story with respect to apprehending the accused alongwith contraband at Vishwakarma Chowk. It indicates that truth is something else. The contradictions are not minor. There is considerable difference and contradictions with respect to conducting proceedings, sitting on chair or on the road or sitting in the car or under the street light or with the help of torch or in the light of shops or by sitting on platform of the Chowk. Claim with respect to giving personal search by the Police Party to the lady also does not appear to be true. Claim with respect to giving personal search by the Police Party to the lady also does not appear to be true. It is also settled that severe the punishment greater the assurance of evidence is required. 28. In the given facts and circumstances of present case, the discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses are creating doubt about prosecution story. In examination-in-chief, official witnesses have deposed parrot like manner, however, when confronted with questions related to factual matrix of the spot, they deposed in contradiction to each other, therefore, their deposition in examination-in-chief, loses its veracity leading to conclusion that there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record to prove the guilt of Farida beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Learned trial Court though has discussed the case law and evidence in detail, but has lost sight of the aforesaid discrepancies, which have not been discussed, except reproducing some portion thereof while citing deposition of witnesses. 30. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sirmour, convicting and sentencing the appellant, is set aside and appellant Farida Begum is acquitted of the charged offence. She is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Appeal is allowed and disposed of.