IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ.
Union Territory of J&K – Petitioner
Versus
Saleem Mohd. – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (AD) No. 08 of 2022
Decided On : 22-09-2022
NARCOTIC DRUGS - ACQUITTAL APPEAL - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 20 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which pertain to the prohibition of certain narcotic drugs and the penalties for their possession. The court emphasized the necessity of proper evidence, including the examination of the Investigating Officer and the FSL expert, to establish the chain of custody of the seized contraband. The lack of such evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, influencing the court's decision to uphold the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the acquittal of Saleem Mohd. by the trial court for possession of 250 grams of charas, recovered during a police patrol. The prosecution argued that the evidence supported the conviction, while the defense contended that key witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and FSL expert, were not examined, undermining the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was significantly weakened by the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the FSL expert, which is critical in NDPS cases. The court noted that there was no evidence of safe custody of the seized contraband, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's acquittal was justified.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the recovery of contraband, and whether the prosecution established a proper chain of custody and evidence to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the FSL expert is fatal to the prosecution's case in NDPS matters, as it raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence and the chain of custody of the seized contraband.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's claims.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2019, recorded by the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 13/Sessions, titled State vs. Saleem Mohd. whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offence under sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) in FIR No. 57/2016 of Police Station, Reasi.
2. The judgment has been assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution in its right perspective during trial and has not rightly acquitted the respondent.
3. Facts as they emerge from the charge sheet are that on 18.04.2016, Police Patrolling Party headed by the SHO, Police Station, Reasi, during patrolling, apprehended the accused at Bhaga, when he on seeing the Police Party tried to run away from the spot, but was apprehended and on personal search, 250 grams charas hidden in corn cobs was recovered from his possession. A docket was sent for registration of FIR to the Police Station. Pursuant to docket, FIR bearing No. 57/2016 for commission of offences under section 8 and 20 of the Act was registered. Investigating Officer visited the spot and seized the contraband and he also extracted the samples out of the contraband and sent to the FSL for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 11.07.2017, before the trial court. The charge for commission of offences under section 8 and 20 of the Act was framed against the respondent vide order dated 07.09.2016. As the respondent did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution had cited as many as 9 witnesses out of which, the prosecution examined only 5 witnesses.
4. Mr. R.S. Jamwal, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the recovery of contraband beyond any shadow of doubt from the respondent but the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the respondent.
5. Per contra, Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that neither the Investigating Officer nor the FSL expert has been examined, as such, there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. PW-1 Sansar Singh stated that on 18.04.2016, he along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, while going towards Bhaga accused was stopped, who was on foot and tried to run away, but was apprehended and from his possession, 12 numbers of corn cobs containing charas like substance was recovered and the weight of the contraband was 250 grams out of which 20 grams was extracted as sample for FSL analysis. In cross examination, he stated that the accused was arrested by him and Naresh SHO and accused was searched by constable Pardeep. He had gone to Police Station in Police vehicle with docket. The contraband was weighed by ASI Vishal. The place where charas was weighed was surrounded by many shops and residential houses and on spot, number of civilians had gathered.
8. PW-2 Pardeep Singh has deposed on similar lines. He proved the supurdnama of the weighing scale and supurdnama of ring. He also stated that samples were drawn from charas for FSL examination and three packets/plandas marked as A, B and C were prepared. During cross examination, he stated that the accused was searched by SHO himself. No civilian was summoned on spot. The corn cobs were counted by SHO.
9. PW-3 Naresh Sharma stated that on 18.04.2016, during the naka at Bhaga, the respondent was caught and he was checked by SHO and from his possession one envelope containing 12 challies of charas were recovered. SHO addressed a docket to Police Station in this respect where from SI Vishal Singh came on spot and prepared the seizure memo of the charas on spot. The charas was weighe
In narcotics cases, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody and present all relevant witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and FSL expert, to prove the case beyond a reasonab....
The prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody and provide consistent evidence to support charges under the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act; otherwise, the accused may be acqui....
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 principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfe....
The prosecution must establish a clear link between seized contraband and samples sent for analysis, including safe custody, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence discrepancies and procedural failures hindered the prosecution case, affirming acquittal under the NDPS Act.
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.
The prosecution must prove the safe custody of seized material and the link evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused.
: While hearing acquittal appeal, Court can re-appreciate evidence, however, it should not interfere with order of acquittal if view taken by trial court is a reasonable view of evidence on record an....
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural violations and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged drug possession.
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.