IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
State of J&K through S.H.O, Police Station, Batote – Appellant
Versus
Charanjeet Singh S/o Mohan Singh and ors. – Respondents
CRAA No.29 of 2017
Decided On : 06-03-2024
NDPS Act - Acquittal - Section 8/15 NDPS Act - Summary: The court discussed the discrepancies in the quantity of contraband seized and the failure to prove the superdnama of seal, safe custody of the contraband, and non-examination of key witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused were found with a large quantity of contraband in a secret chamber of a vehicle. Despite evidence presented, the trial court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the exact quantity of the contraband seized, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the lack of key witness examinations. As a result, the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld.
Issues: Discrepancies in witness testimonies, failure to prove the exact quantity of contraband seized, lack of key witness examinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt. Discrepancies in evidence and failure to prove key elements of the case can weaken the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
PUNEET GUPTA, J.
1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.05.2015, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, whereby the respondents herein stand acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. It is pleaded by the appellant that the judgment impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record. The documentary as well as the oral evidence produced by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents.
2. The respondents are represented through their counsel.
3. The original record of the trial court is also before the court.
4. The respondents shall be referred to as accused for the purposes of discussion in the appeal.
5. The case of the prosecution before the trial court is that on 12.07.2011, vehicle One Ton Truck bearing registration No. 6309/PB-7AB was intercepted during checking at Amar Chashma NHW-1A Batote when the vehicle was on its way from Srinagar to Jammu. The vehicle on being signalled by the police party did not stop and was made to stop at some distance. The accused Charanjeet Singh was driver of the vehicle and the accused Gurdeep Singh was occupying the seat next to driver and both of them had one bag each lying near their seats. The vehicle was checked and during checking a secret chamber was found in the Truck which contained white plastic bags. The smell from the bags appeared to be of poppy husk and the accused could not provide any satisfactory explanation. The information in writing of the above was sent to P/S, Batote by SI-Maqsood Ahmad Khan through PW-Mohd. Saleem. FIR No. 60/2011 was registered with P/S, Batote against the accused on 12.07.2011 under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. Dy.S.P Head Quarter and Incharge Tehsildar, Batote and the Investigating Officer- Arun Koul came on spot. The seizure of total 13 bags was affected from the accused as well as from the secret chamber of the vehicle and which purportedly contained poppy husk. The total quantity of contraband weighed 1 quintal and 62 kilograms. The documents were prepared with regard to the seizure of the vehicle and contraband and which was sent to FSL and CRCL Delhi. The statements of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. The investigations led to filing of charge sheet against the accused under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. The court framed the charges against the accused under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. The accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses in support of its case.
7. PW-2 Mohd. Sharief has deposed of the vehicle being intercepted by the police party and recovery of eleven gunny bags from the secret chamber of the vehicle and also of one bag each from the accused lying near their seats. The weight of the contraband was found to be 2 quintal and 62 kilograms. The seizure memo of the same was prepared. The seal was placed on the superdnama (Ext-P3/C) of PW-Jagdish Chander. The accused persons were not having beard though the photographs annexed with the file showed the accused persons having beard. The witness has neither seen the bags nor the seal in the court. Executive Magistrate also came on spot is also stated by the witness.
8. PW-3 Mohd. Saleem also from the police department has deposed that the total weight of contraband recovered from the vehicle as well as from the accused was 1 quintal and 62 kilograms. The ring used for sealing was placed on the superdnama of PW-Sarpanch Jagdish. He is witness to the arrest memo Ext-P3 and memo of personal search of accused exhibited as Ext-P3/A and Ext-P3/B. He also speaks of Dy.S.P and Magistrate being present on spot and the vehicle being checked in their presence. The witness has been shown the article seized in the case. The statement of the witness was deferred but the cross-examination of the witness did not take place thereafter.
9. PW-4 Constable Abdul Rashid has tried to depose in th
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt, and discrepancies in evidence can weaken the prosecution's case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear and consistent chain of evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In NDPS cases, the prosecution is required to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and the integrity of the evidence chain, failing which an acquittal is justified.
The prosecution has the duty to establish the safe custody of seized items and the importance of credible evidence in proving the possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide satisfactory explanation and proper documentation regarding the custody and production of seized ite....
The prosecution must prove the seized contraband and its connection to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the NDPS Act.
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.