Prosecution failed to prove the nexus between the appellant and the offenses charged, leading to acquittal.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[To be referred as “ BNSS ”.] (corresponding to Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[To be referred as “CrPC”.]) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.10.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, District Jalore[To be referred as “Learned Judge”.], in Sessions Case No. 05/2017. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985[To be referred as “NDPS Act”.], as well as Sections 279, 337, 323, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[To be referred as “IPC”.], and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984[To be referred as “PDPPA Act”.]. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 07.09.2016, acting upon specific information, police officials of Sayala Police Station, District Jalore, set up a blockade at Sarhad Unadi around 9:45 AM. During the blockade, a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number RJ-04-TA-4331, and a Bolero bearing engine number GHG4C72030 from the Pathedi route, attempted to evade the blockade. When signaled to stop, the drivers of both the cars accelerated, attempting to break through. The police personnel pursued the vehicles, and during the chase, some occupants of the Bolero got out, while brandishing pistols, fled the scene, abandoning the vehicle. Upon searching the abandoned Scorpio, the police did not recovered anything but while searching Bolero, the police recovered 13 sacks containing approximately 282 kilograms of poppy husk. Then, the samples were duly collected, sealed, and marked. Consequently, an FIR No.109/2016 was registered under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, and Section 3 of the PDPPA Act. The appellant was arrested, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed, which the appellant denied. During trial, the prosecution examined 35 witnesses and produced 163 documents. Ultimately, the learned Judge vide judgment dated 19.10.2024, convicted and sentenced the appellant, leading to the filing of this appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Dy.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as perused the material available on record.

4. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that despite an array of witnesses and a large volume of documents annexed to the charge-sheet, barring Hanwantaram and the Investigating Officer who recorded his statement, there appears to be neither any direct nor indirect nexus connecting the appellant with the alleged offence. The members of the team who were allegedly involved in chasing the vehicle have simply stated that a recovery of contraband was effected from a car. However, none of them has deposed anything which could directly or indirectly connect the appellant with the vehicle in question or the contraband recovered therefrom.

4.1 It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to establish any link of the appellant with either of the two vehicles, the Scorpio or the Bolero. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had at any point of time, either actual or constructive possession, dominion, control, or even a moment