HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Dalip Singh & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
CRA No. 44 of 2014
Decided on : 11-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of prosecution case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. findings on the prosecution's evidence (Para 6) |
| 3. appellants' argument on evidence (Para 7) |
| 4. review of trial court's evidence and procedures (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. concerns about evidence integrity and reasonable doubt (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final ruling and acquittal of appellants (Para 20) |
JUDGEMENT
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Judge') whereby they have been convicted for offences under sections 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Special Judge whereby in proof of aforesaid offences, the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo a further imprisonment for six months each.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that, on 23.08.2010 at about 6.45 pm, a Truck bearing registration No. HR46C-3136 that was loaded with apples reported at export yard of Toll Post, Lakhanpur. The said Truck was subjected to physical checking by the Excise Guards PWs Mohd. Bashir and Sat Pal under the supervision of Inspector Excise Task Force Gulrez Haq Malik. Upon physical checking of the truck, a bag, containing poppy straw (bukki) hidden beneath the apple boxes, was detected. The appellants were questioned and detained at the Toll Post. At about 7.25 pm, PW Girdhari Lal ETO informed the complainant PW Arun Kumar, Inspector Excise Sub Range Kathua, who, vide his letter dated 23.08.2010 requested Tehsildar Kathua to depute Executive Magistrate First Class to Toll Post Lakhanpur. PW Krishan Lal sharma, Naib Tehsildar reached spot at 8.15 pm and the complainant PW Arun Kumar also reached over there and started investigation of the case.
3. The contraband was seized on spot and the appellants were arrested. The seized contraband was found to be weighing 9 kgs and 100 gms inclusive of packing. Out of the seized contraband, two samples weighing 50 gms ach were drawn and the same were sealed with white cloth and marked as 'B' and 'C'. The rest of the contraband was sealed and marked as 'A'. The samples as well as the remaining contraband were sealed with a brass seal in presence of Executive Magistrate First Class, Kathua and thereafter the samples were resealed by the said Executive Magistrate First Class, Kathua with his official seal. In this regard, a certificate was issued by the Executive Magistrate to the Director FSL Jammu authorising him to break open the seal of the samples for chemical analysis. As per the complaint, the sample marked as 'B' was sent to the Director FSL Jammu vide letter dated 27.08.2010 along with a resealing certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate First Class and the same was deposited with Director, FSL Jammu by Sh. Bishamber Singh Driver Excise Range, Kathua. The receipt of sample dated 1.09.2010 was obtained from the FSL. As per report of the FSL dated 13.10.2010 presence of morphine was found in the sample drawn from the seized poppy straw (bukki). Thus, according to the complainant, offences under sections 8/15 of NDPS Act were found established against the appellants.
4. Vide order dated 01.11.2010, the Special Judge framed charges for offences under section 8/15 of NDPS Act against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. Accordingly, the complainant was directed to produce the witnesses in support of its case.
5. The complainant examined PWs Girdhari Lal Sharma, Gulrez Haq, Rohit Koul, Ravi Kumar, Sat Pal, Mohd. Bashir, Krishan Kumar Sharma and Arun Kumar as witnesses in support of its case. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence
AI
(1) Where Police witnesses examined are reliable then prosecution case is not required to be rejected on the ground that independent witnesses were not examined.(2) Statement of witness is required t....
Conviction under NDPS Act overturned due to significant procedural lapses and discrepancies in evidence handling, resulting in reasonable doubt.
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.
Prosecution must adhere to strict evidential procedures in NDPS Act cases; failure undermines the conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in evidence and chain of custody led to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Point of Law : Harsher the punishment, more is the strictness of proof required for the prosecution. The burden is always upon prosecution to prove the case against the person accused with proof beyo....
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.