Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 700
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
The State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kansara Mayur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2015
Decided On : 10-06-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
The failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses during a public search and the absence of recorded chain of custody for seized evidence constitutes a fatal flaw, creating reasonable doubt and leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20(b)(ii)(c) - Criminal Appeal - Recovery of contraband - Failure to associate independent witnesses during search and seizure on public road - Absence of entries in records regarding removal and re-deposit of case property - Impact on credibility of prosecution case. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Evidence and Proof - Criminal jurisprudence - Prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - Failure to maintain chain of custody and proper documentation for seized material creates a suspicion regarding the integrity of the evidence - Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The accused was intercepted by police while in possession of a bag containing contraband. The material was seized and sent for chemical examination, following which the accused was convicted by the trial court. The appellate court subsequently set aside the conviction citing a lack of independent witnesses and significant procedural lapses in the handling of the case property. The state filed an appeal challenging this acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the search was conducted on a busy public route, yet no independent witnesses were associated without valid justification. Furthermore, the absence of log entries for the movement of the case property from the repository to the court and back to the repository rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court held that these procedural lapses justified the acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the recovery and identification of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the lack of independent witnesses in a public search and the absence of proper custodial records for seized property are sufficient grounds to uphold the acquittal of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution bears the burden of establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. When there are significant gaps in the chain of custody—specifically the lack of evidence establishing the movement of case property—and an unjustified absence of independent witnesses during a search, the integrity of the seizure is undermined, necessitating an acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the conviction and appeal trajectory. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement of independent witnesses and integrity of chain of custody. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. final confirmation of acquittal and disposal of appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
1. The present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 04.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4030 of 2013, Kansara Mayur v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the conviction of the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the ND & PS Act. The sentence awarded by the trial court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year has been set aside.
2. The facts of the case reveal that on 15.10.2011, the police party stopped the respondent-accused who was carrying a bag in his right hand, however, on seeing the police party, the accused started running away and he was overpowered. The accused-respondent was carrying a yellow bag which contained charas in the shape of chapattis weighing 2kg. 300grams. It was sealed with seal H at 10 places. NCB form in triplicate was prepared, and the seal impression H was affixed on it. Sample seal was taken on piece of cloth. Rukka through Constable Kashmir Singh was sent, on the basis of which FIR No. 248/10 dated 15.10.2011 for an offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act was registered in the matter. The contraband was deposited with MHC and it was sent to FSL, Junga. After receiving the report, challan was filed and the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the prosecution case and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though, he pleaded his innocence, he was convicted based upon the evidence adduced before the trial court in the matter.
3. This Court has carefully gone through the statement of witnesses recorded before the trial court as well as the detailed order passed by the High Court after referring minutely to the statement of each and every witness. The High Court after appreciating the evidence on record has observed that the accused was apprehended on National Highway according to PW-1, HC Vijay Kumar, the investigating officer stopped the ongoing vehicles, and the occupants of the vehicles were requested to become witnesses. It has been held that National Highway-21 is a busy highway and for the reasons best known to the police, there is not a single independent witness to support the arrest, search and seizure. The High Court has also observed that it is not a case where recovery was affected from isolated or secluded place. On the contrary, the recovery has been made from National Highway and the police ought to have associated the independent witnesses being available. Thus, the High Court has raised a doubt over the proceedings relating to arrest, search and seizure.
4. The High Court has, further, held that the case property was deposited in malakhana by Additional SHO on 15.10.2011 along with NCB-1 form and sample seals H and A were affixed. The samples were sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination through PW-8, Constable Kesar Singh. Constable Kesar Singh (PW-8) has deposited the samples at FSL-Junga and the case property was produced while recording statement of PW-1, HC Vijay Kumar. PW-1 has identified the Ex. P-1. The High Court has observed that there is no entry in the malakhana register as to when the case property was taken out for being produced in the Court and similarly there is no entry when the case property was re-deposited in the malakhana. The High Court has, further, observed that no evidence has come on record as to who produced the case property in the Court. The High Court has, further, held that the entries are required to be made when the case property was taken out from the malakhana for production in the Court in Form-19.
5. The High Court has, f
