The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing the validity of police statements in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court, through Justice Anoop Chitkara, clarified that while the statements of police officials should not be summarily discarded due to their official capacity, their testimonies must instill confidence to be deemed credible.
The case in question involved the dismissal of a plea challenging the conviction of an individual under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The accused, Joginder Singh, had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2002 for his alleged involvement in the illicit trade of contraband. The incident dated back to 1997 when Joginder Singh and three others were apprehended by the police. Upon inspecting their vehicle, six bags containing 38.5 kilograms of poppy husk were discovered.
The crux of the matter revolved around the contention that the contraband might have been planted. The argument suggested that, considering the search occurred during daylight with independent witnesses readily available, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police could have been summoned, the failure to involve non-police officials as independent witnesses raised doubts.
Justice Chitkara critically examined the circumstances, noting the absence of an association with independent witnesses by the investigator and his superior officer. The court acknowledged that the failure to involve independent witnesses required careful consideration, and it delved into legal precedents to assess the impact of such lapses on the admissibility of police testimonies and the potential prejudice caused to the accused.
Drawing from the 1965 Masalti v. State of UP case, the court highlighted the need for a cautious judicial approach when dealing with evidence provided by partisan or interested witnesses. It underscored that evidence should not be rejected solely based on the partisanship of witnesses but rather considered carefully, taking into account factors such as discrepancies, the genuineness of the evidence, and the overall probability of the presented narrative.
The court also referred to the 1996 Tahir v. State (Delhi) case, asserting that the testimony of police officials should not be deemed infirm simply because of their affiliation with the police force. The Supreme Court had emphasized that, if found reliable, the evidence of police officials could form the basis of a conviction even without corroboration from independent witnesses.
Furthermore, the court cited the 2018 Krishan Chand v. State of HP case, where it was clarified that the lack of independent witnesses does not automatically diminish the credibility of the police testimony. The court stressed that it may not always be feasible to find independent witnesses at all locations and times, considering the general reluctance of the public to come forward.
Justice Chitkara invoked the principle that the testimony of official witnesses should not be rejected merely due to the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. While acknowledging the desirability of having independent witnesses, the court asserted that, in the absence of such witnesses, reliable statements from police officers, without animosity established by the accused, could still form the basis for a conviction.
The judgment also incorporated the words of British philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham, stating that witnesses are the "eyes and ears of justice." It emphasized that the role of a witness is to provide an account of events based on conscious observation or experience.
In analyzing the evidence on record and applying legal precedents, the court concluded that the lack of association with independent witnesses did not necessarily indicate misconduct by the police. The court asserted that the statements of police officials should not be disregarded solely based on their official capacity but must inspire confidence, which, in this particular trial, was found to be the case.
In summary, the judgment from the Punjab & Haryana High Court highlights the nuanced approach required in evaluating police testimonies in NDPS Act cases. It underscores the importance of credibility and confidence in such testimonies while recognizing the practical challenges associated with securing independent witnesses in all circumstances. The ruling provides valuable insights into the judicial scrutiny of evidence in cases involving law enforcement agencies, emphasizing a balance between caution and a fair assessment of the presented facts.
TAGS: Punjab & Haryana High Court NDPS Act police testimony credibility confidence conviction legal precedents
