Procedural compliance, veracity of prosecution story, and the role of the Executive Magistrate in resealing the sample are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the accused/respondent passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) on 15.03.2017 in case FIR no.82/2004 bearing File No.216/B, FIR No.82/2004 for offences punishable under section 8/20 NDPS Act, titled as State through Police Station, Khanyar vs. Shabir Ahmed Rather, precisely on the following grounds:

i) That there were sufficient grounds to prove the charge against accused. The witnesses produced show that accused was found in possession of contraband substance (Charas) and he has, thus, committed offence beyond any shadow of doubt. The witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars. The Trial Court, however, did not give any credence even to the material evidence vis-à-vis recovery of the Charas from the active possession of the accused/ respondent on spot when he was arrested. The Trial court has wrongly observed that Investigating Agency has failed to prove the number of sticks of Charas recovered from the possession of accused which fact cannot be sole ground for passing impugned judgment. There was no material contradiction vis-à-vis recovery of Charas, still the Trial court has not properly appreciated the witnesses produced. The fact that Executive Magistrate cited as PW has not been examined could neither have formed the basis for passing judgment of acquittal in favour of accused nor have taken all measures to ensure presence of the officer before whom the recorded contraband was sealed and forwarded to the Chemical Analyst to FSL. In any case, search and seizure had taken place in presence of a Gazetted Officer, such a statement of Executive Magistrate not recorded should not have been given exclusive weightage in discarding the entire factual and procedural requirements under law being adhered, though the Trial court to that extent has misinterpreted the position of law. The Trial court during arguments has appraised the important fact that at the relevant point of time, a civil witness who had witnessed the occurrence was reluctant to associate with the investigation of the case. The other evidence produced cannot be overlooked, however, while passing impugned judgement, the Trial Court has put undue weightage to blemishes that are not sufficient to throw away the prosecution case. The requirement of independent witnesses under Section 134 of the Evidence Act stresses on the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence, is not plausible at all in light of the hostile environment towards the police.

ii) That witnesses examined have in unequivocal terms corroborated prosecution story and connected accused/respondent with commission of offence. The Trial court has not accorded due appreciation to incriminating evidence against respondent/accused and passed impugned judgement without taking into consideration seriousness of offence committed by respondent/accused where the menace of such offence has taken an enormous proportion.

iii) While relying on the arguments of the defence, the Trial court has ignored the prosecution aspect of the case as the evidence which has been recorded by the prosecution, has succeeded in establishing the guilt committed by the accused and the defence has failed to create any doubt in the prosecution case, though there may be minor contradictions, discrepancies in the investigation but it does not mean that it should be thrown overboard. Still the prosecution has been successful to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. Such minor defects will have no effect upon the prosecution and as per the settled principle of law, same has to be ignored to meet the ends of justice. The acquittal of the accused has been passed in slipshod manner without appreciating the evidence and record present in the file but the trial court has brushed aside the same, which was sufficient and cogent evidence to convict the accused/ respondent but has committed grave err