IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
Zosangzuali - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Mizoram and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram.
2. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellant Smt. Zosangzuali, impugning the judgment dated 18.04.2023 and order dated 24.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib, Mizoram whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The period of detention already undergone was directed to be set aside against the term of sentence imposed.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:
ii. The recovered contraband was immediately seized and the appellant was arrested on the same day.
iii. The Seizing Officer had also submitted a report of seizure and arrest to the Officer-in-Charge of Excise and Narcotic Stations, Kolasib and a case bearing No. EX-KLB/95/19 dated 27.09.2019 under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered. The complainant, Joseph C. Lalhmangiahzuala was entrusted to investigate the case. The complainant took steps for preparation of inventory of the seized contraband and drawal of sample from the same before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalasib. He also took steps for sending the sample of the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Aizawl for chemical analysis. It was also found that at the time of arrest, the appellant had mentioned her name wrongly as Lalsungzuali instead of Zosangzuali. The complainant collected the Chemical Analysis Report from Forensic Laboratory, Aizawl which gave positive test for heroin in the samples with purity of about 77%. It is also stated in complaint that during interrogation, the appellant admitted being involved in illegal possession and selling of banned drugs.
iv. On receipt of the said complaint, SC(K) No. 3 of 2020 was registered under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
v. The appellant faced the trial, remaining in judicial custody, as she was not enlarged on bail during the trial.
vi. On 05.02.2020, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried.
vii. The prosecution side examined five (05) prosecution witnesses to bring home the charge against the present appellant.
viii. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which, she denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded her innocence. She also adduced evidence of one defence witness in her defence.
ix. However, ultimately by the judgment and order which are impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as described in Paragraph No. 2 hereinabove.
4. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence available on record.
5. PW-1, Shri A.C. Vanlalhuma, who is a teacher by profession, has deposed that on 27.09.2019, at ab
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2018:INSC:714 : (2018) 17 SCC 627
N.Moni Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 278
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Section 52A deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances.
Point of Law : Harsher the punishment, more is the strictness of proof required for the prosecution. The burden is always upon prosecution to prove the case against the person accused with proof beyo....
Point of law : NDPS Act – Appeal against conviction -It would be risky and impermissible to leave the samples with the special messenger for a long gap of time. Chances of tampering when there is lac....
Conviction under the Act requires the prosecution to prove foundational facts, including valid search, conscious possession, and an unbroken chain of custody, beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to comp....
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, undermines the prosecution's case and warrants acquittal.
The standard of proof for possession under the NDPS Act requires both physical control and knowledge of the substance, which was upheld despite procedural lapses.
Appellate court upholds acquittal under NDPS Act if trial view possible; strict compliance with sampling procedures essential; witness contradictions, no independent corroboration fatal to prosecutio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.