The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and significant contradictions in evidence, along with non-compliance with statutory provisions, can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

01. State of J&K (now Union Territory of J&K) is in appeal against a judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Udhampur [“the trial Court”] in file No.31/08/Spl.Ch titled "State of J&K V. Tariq Ahmed Dar and another’, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the offences under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act.

02. Briefly stated, the prosecution story as was projected in the final report submitted before the trial Court, is that on 06.01.2012, at about 11:35 a.m. Constable PW Noor Ahmed came to the Police Station Udhampur with a docket forwarded by S.I. Pawan Dev Singh by which it was reported that at about 11:30 a.m., S.I Padam Dev Singh along with other officials stopped a Tata-Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.7363-JK03A for checking. The said vehicle ignored the signal and jumped the Jakhani Check Post. The vehicle was stopped and upon checking, 24 polythene packets were recovered behind the seats kept inside speakers. On inspection and by smelling, 22 packets were found to contain cannibas powder, whereas two other packets were found to contain charas balls and cobs. On inquiry, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Tariq Ahmed Dar and the person sitting along with him disclosed his name as Mohan Lal. Both the aforesaid persons, i.e. the respondents herein could not justify possession of such large quantity of cannibas powder and charas. On the basis of this checking, FIR No.08/2012 was registered and investigation was set in motion for commission of offence under Sections 8/20 NDPS. The final report was filed before the trial Court. The respondents were charge-sheeted on 11.07.2012. Both the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

03. With a view to prove the charge against the respondents, the prosecution examined PW Constable Noor Ahmed, PW Nain Sukh, PW Pawan Dev Singh, PW Gurbaksh Singh, PW Dalbir Singh Head Constable, PW Taja Begum, PW Ghulam Hassan, PW Qasim Din Moharir crime, PW Ved Prakash, PW Gian Chand Sharma (I.O.) and PW Shakeel Ahmed Wani, FSL Expert. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances emerging in the prosecution evidence were put to the respondents and their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The respondents denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. They, however, examined DW-Abdul Rashid, DW-Mohd. Shahban, DW-Romi and DW-Akash Verma as witnesses in their defence. The trial Court considered the rival contentions and the evidence on record led by both the sides and found following serious contradictions going to the root of the trial:

(i) that there was major contradiction as to the exact place in the vehicle from where the contraband items were recovered;

(ii) that there was serious contradiction with regard to the time when the resealed samples were deposited in the Malkhana;

(iii) that there is also a contradiction as to the number of samples those were resealed and deposited in the Malkhana;

(iv) that the FSL report is cryptic and does not specify the source from where the charas allegedly detected in chemical examination has been extracted/obtained;

(v) that there is total non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act;

(vi) that there is contradiction with regard to the total weight of the contraband seized and sealed on spot by the Investigating Officer; and 

(vii) that the presence of two independent witnesses, i.e. PW Nain Sukh and PW Gurbaksh Singh is doubtful.

04. The trial Court, having found the aforesaid contradictions going to the root of the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not firmly established the case against the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and accordingly, vide judgment impugned acquitted the respondents giving them the benefit of doubt. It is this judgment of the trial Court which is called in question in this appeal.

05. The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellant, primarily, on the gro