LI Network
Published on: November 12, 2023 at 10:48 IST
In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that statements provided by police officials in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cases should not be summarily dismissed due to their professional affiliation. However, the court emphasized that such testimonies must instill confidence.
Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a plea challenging the conviction of an individual under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. T
he accused had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2002 for involvement in the trade of contraband.
The case involved the apprehension of Joginder Singh and three others in 1997, where a search of their jeep revealed six bags containing 38.5 kgs of poppy husk.
The court rejected the argument that the contraband was planted, pointing out that the search occurred during daylight, and independent witnesses were available. The failure to call non-police officials as independent witnesses was also noted.
Referring to legal precedents, including the Masalti case, the court highlighted the need for a cautious judicial approach when evaluating evidence from partisan or interested witnesses. It emphasized that evidence should not be discarded solely based on the affiliation of the witness.
The court cited Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996), stating that there is no inherent infirmity in the testimony of police officials, and their evidence can be reliable if found so, without the necessity of corroboration by independent witnesses.
It also cited Krishan Chand v. State of HP (2018) to support the notion that the absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily undermine the reliability of police testimony.
Quoting Jeremy Bentham, the court highlighted the vital role of witnesses in the pursuit of justice and reiterated the importance of evaluating evidence in the trial process.
In conclusion, the court affirmed that while the statements of police officials should not be outrightly dismissed due to their professional status, a critical assessment of the testimonies is essential. The ruling underscores the significance of evaluating evidence based on its merits rather than the identity or affiliation of the witnesses.
Case Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana
