The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence connecting the accused to seized substances, procedural compliance under the NDPS Act, and the interpretation of legal definitions under the Act.

1. Appellants, Shanti Devi and Fula Devi who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment of conviction dated 05.02.2013 and each of them sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as fined Rs.1,00,000/- in default thereof to undergo S.I. of six months additionally vide judgment of sentence dated 11.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-Special Judge (NDPS Act), Gaya in connection with N.D. P.S. Case No.10 of 2010 arising out of Gaya Rail P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 have challenged under instant appeal.

2. PW-6, Gauri Shankar Gupta, Officer-in-charge of Gaya Rail P.S. recorded his self statement on 16.05.2009 at about 03:30 hours in the waiting room situated at platform no.1 disclosing therein that while he along with other G.R.P personnel were on night patrolling and during course thereof, have gone inside waiting room they found two women sitting near bags so picked up whereupon suspicion grew followed with apprehension of both the women who were non than the appellants. On query both of them disclosed that all the bags contain dust of Ganja as well as Hemp. After opening the bag he also found the same. It has further been disclosed that altogether 20 bags were. It has further been disclosed that all the bags were sealed after taking out 1 Kg. therefrom as sample. Seizure list was also prepared at that very place in presence of one Munna Sao (PW-4) and Shankar Chaudhary (PW-7).

3. After registration of Gaya Rail P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act along with 20(a), 22 of the NDPS Act. Investigation was taken up by PW-8, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted thereunder on account of which, the trial proceeded and culminated in getting the appellants convicted in a manner as indicated above. Hence the instant appeal.

4. Altogether eight PWs have been examined on behalf of prosecution to support its case out of whom PW-1 is Sheo Shankar Ram, a constable, PW-2 is Md. Julfikar, a constable, PW-3 is Krishnadeo Singh, a constable, PW-4 is Munna Sao, seizure list witness, PW-5 is Rabindra Nath Thakur, ASI, PW-6 is Gauri Shankar Gupt, S.I. (Informant), PW-7 is Shankar Chaudhary, seizure list witness and PW-8 is Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer. Prosecution had also exhibited signature of seizure list witness as Ext.-1, 1/A, Ext.-2 Seizure List, Ext.-3 Written Report, Ext.-4- FSL Report.

5. The defence as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence. However, neither any DW nor an exhibit has been made on behalf of defence.

6. Manifold argument has been raised on behalf of appellant during course of challenging the finding of guilt and sentence recorded by the learned trial court. The first and foremost plea happens to be with regard to connectivity of the appellants with the alleged recovered article. On this score, it has been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of appellants. No luggage, cash, or any article which could have gone against the appellants justifying their arrest being associated with those twenty bags of Ganja or “Bhang” whatever may be. Not only this, the story happens to be improbable in the background of the fact that it was not a quantity which could have been carried by the appellants stealthily rather if the prosecution case is accepted, it weigh 1200 Kg. having kept in twenty bags. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident that the waiting room is fenced from three sides while open at only side that too having opening at platform no.1 and on account thereof, carrying of twenty bags from outside to inside without having interception during course thereof, was not at all possible. Therefore, unless and until there happens to be conclusive evidence which the prosecution lacks, conviction and sentence so inflicted