Introduction:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the case of Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P. (Cr. Appeal No. 501 of 2024), delivered a significant judgment clarifying the approach that trial courts must adopt while imposing sentences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Rakesh Kainthla on 14th May 2025, underscores the principle of proportionality in sentencing and reiterates that courts must strictly follow the quantity-based sentencing guidelines prescribed by the Central Government, rather than deviating arbitrarily. The matter originated from an incident on 15 May 2018, when a police patrol near Paraur village in Himachal Pradesh intercepted a suspicious vehicle whose driver, Saurabh Bhatnagar, and passenger, Abhishek Gupta, upon being stopped, attempted to flee but were apprehended. Upon search, approximately 50 grams of heroin were recovered, concealed inside the vehicle’s seat covers in the form of stick-shaped rolls and packets wrapped in star-patterned tape. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against both men, and charges under the NDPS Act were framed. During the trial, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses whose testimonies corroborated each other in establishing possession of heroin. However, while the trial court acquitted Abhishek Gupta, citing insufficient evidence, it convicted Saurabh Bhatnagar and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for eight years along with a fine of ₹1 lakh.

Arguments:

Aggrieved by this verdict, Saurabh Bhatnagar filed a criminal appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, contesting both his conviction and sentence. The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, particularly in police testimonies regarding the site and timeline of the search. Several police witnesses present at the time of recovery failed to mention it during their examination, undermining the credibility of the evidence. Additionally, independent witnesses turned hostile, further casting doubt on the recovery’s validity. The appellant pointed out that CCTV cameras were installed at the location, but no footage was seized or produced during the trial. Only the Investigating Officer referenced video recordings, which were not corroborated by other witnesses. Another key contention was that since the co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence, the appellant’s conviction and the severe sentence were unjustified and disproportionate given the quantity of heroin recovered. The appellant’s legal team, led by Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, thus sought acquittal or at least a reduction in sentence.

On behalf of the State, represented by Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, it was contended that minor contradictions in witness testimonies are natural and should not result in acquittal when the core narrative is consistent. The prosecution emphasised that the totality of evidence, including testimonies and recovery, was sufficient to establish possession by the appellant. The State further argued that the absence of CCTV footage was a procedural lapse but did not vitiate the entire case. Additionally, it maintained that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on the absence of evidence proving his conscious possession, which was distinct from the appellant’s position as the driver of the vehicle where heroin was found.

Judgement:

The Court analysed precedents, including Budh Ram v. State of H.P., 2020, wherein the Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s version cannot be dismissed merely because independent witnesses did not support it. The Court also referenced Chet Ram v. State of H.P., observing that omission by witnesses to mention certain facts does not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case. Minor contradictions related to timing and procedures, the Court noted, are natural human errors and immaterial if they do not affect the core facts. On the issue of CCTV footage, the Court remarked that failure to seize it points to the defective investigation, but does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal. It reiterated that evidence must be weighed holistically.

Crucially, the Court distinguished the appellant’s case from that of the acquitted co-accused, holding that the latter was not proved to have knowledge or control over the narcotics, while the appellant, as driver, was in conscious possession. The Court then turned to the question of sentence. The quantity of heroin recovered, approximately 49 grams, fell within the “intermediate quantity” category as per Central Government notifications prescribing sentencing ranges under the NDPS Act. The trial court’s sentence of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fine was deemed excessive and not by the principle of proportionality, which requires that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and quantity of contraband. Referring to the statutory sentencing framework, the Court observed that the prescribed range for intermediate quantities did not warrant such a harsh sentence unless exceptional circumstances existed, which were absent in this case. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and the fine to ₹20,000, emphasising that trial courts must not deviate from the prescribed quantity-based sentencing guidelines except in extraordinary situations.

This judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court thus reinforces the importance of adherence to statutory sentencing guidelines under the NDPS Act and affirms the application of the proportionality principle in narcotics-related offences. It highlights the need for a balanced judicial approach that neither unduly harshens sentences nor undermines the rule of law by acquitting accused on minor procedural defects or inconsistencies that do not affect core facts. The Court’s careful distinction between the accused’s conscious possession and that of co-accused reflects nuanced fact-based adjudication, underscoring the legal principle that mere presence or association is insufficient to attract conviction under the NDPS Act. This ruling provides critical guidance for trial courts in Himachal Pradesh and beyond, promoting uniformity and fairness in sentencing narcotic offences and strengthening the overall framework of narcotics control jurisprudence in India.