Non-compliance with statutory provisions, material contradictions in witness statements, and missing link evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2012 passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the “trial court”) in file No. 1/Sessions titled “State of J&K Vs. Shabir Ahmed Bhat and others” arising out of FIR No. 17/2006 registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu, for commission of offence under Section 21 NDPS Act, whereby the respondents have been acquitted by the learned trial Court.

2. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence, as the prosecution had established the case against the respondents by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence, that was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt but despite that the learned trial court has acquitted all the respondents by wrongly appreciating the evidence.

4. Heard and perused the record of the trial court including the judgment impugned.

5. The case of the prosecution as it emerges from the charge-sheet is that on 24.02.2006, information was received from a reliable source that at yard No. 6, near Javed Hotel, one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK08A-5463 was parked, in which three persons were sitting and they were having narcotic drugs for the purpose of sale. On receipt of this information, FIR bearing No. 17/2006 for commission of offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act was registered and investigation was handed over to Nazir Ahmed-Sub Inspector, Incharge Police Post, Narwal. He along with other Police officials i.e. Head Constable Mohan-91/J, Constable Surinder Kumar-2774/J, Constable Tara Chand-3112/J, Constable Ghulam Mohammad-2258/J, and Constable Mohd. Sadiq 2742/J reached on spot and found one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK08A-5463 parked at yard No. 6, near Javed Hotel, Narwal. Besides driver, two other persons were also found sitting in the said Tata Sumo. An enquiry was made from them and during enquiry they disclosed their names as Shabir Ahmed Bhatt S/o Ghulam Qadir Bhat R/o Verinag, Tehsil Duru, District Anantnag-Driver of the Tata Sumo, Ashiq Hussain Malik S/o Ghulam Rasool Malik R/o Verinag Tehsil Duru, District Anantnag and Tahir Ahmed S/o Mohd. Abdullah R/o Nowgam, Banihal, District Doda. They were given an option of search and thereafter their search was conducted in presence of SDPO City (East), Jammu. Vehicle-Tata Sumo was also searched and during search narcotic drugs weighing 68 grams were recovered from Shabir Ahmed Bhatt. Besides Rs. 2,250/-, one identity card was also recovered from the left pocket of his pant. One packet having narcotic drug weighing 17 grams and 2 packets having narcotic drugs weighing 34 grams i.e. total 51 grams were recovered along with two identity cards, one watch and Rs. 8,720/- from right pocket of the pant of accused- Ashiq Hussain and one packet having narcotic drug weighing 17 grams and two packets having narcotic drugs weighing 34 grams i.e. total 51 grams along with Rs. 9,200/- and one Nokia Phone, one election card and one identity card were recovered from accused-Tahir Ahmed. The narcotic drugs were weighed and they were found to be 170 grams. They were seized on spot and samples weighing 5 grams each were also extracted for the purpose of chemical examination. Recovered packets containing narcotic drugs were marked as A, B, C, D, E, F and the samples were marked as A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E-1, F-1. Tata Sumo was also seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. FSL report was also obtained and as per the report “Heroine” was detected in the samples sent for chemical examination. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for commission of offence under Section 21 NDPS Act was filed against the respondents. The respondents were charged for commission of o