The requirement of legal evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction and the benefit of doubt in case of doubts raised by the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. r/w. 36-B of NDPS Act 1985 to set aside the conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.42 of 2018 dated 23.06.2022 by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai by allowing this appeal.)

1. Challenging the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.42 of 2018 by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai, this present criminal appeal has been filed.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.03.2017 on receiving secret information that a courier parcel containing narcotic drug booked by the M/s.S.T.Courier from Madurai to Chennai vide booking No.52379864386 dated 04.03.2017 in the name of accused Palani addressed to JPS Building- IOA Complex, No.69 Thiruvika High Road, Royapettah High Road, Landmark Ajantha Bus Stop, Chennai – 6000 014 was likely to be received by the accused Palani. The respondent Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials went to the place and intercepted the accused, who received the Courier Parcel and on examination, found that the parcel contained 940 grams of Opium, thereafter, they seized the Opium, arrested the accused and registered the case under Sections 8 (c) r/w 18 (c) and 8(c) r/w 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985. After investigation, filed the final report, which was taken on file in C.C.No.42 of 2018.

3. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked eighty two documents Exs.P1 to P82 and produced four material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of the accused, no oral, documentary evidence and material objects were produced.

4. The trial Court, after recording the prosecution witnesses and on completion of the trial and after considering the evidence, found not guilty for the offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 28 of NDPS Act and acquitted the accused but found guilty for the offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 18 (c) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the accused filed this criminal appeal and challenged the impugned judgment herein.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is against law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Further contended that the mandatory requirement of the provision under Section 42 of NDPS Act is not complied with and the entire seizure is vitiated. There is no evidence to prove that the accused is in possession with conscious knowledge of Opium. The prosecution failed to examine Thiru.Manojkumar, he alone intercepted and according to the prosecution, he intercepted, seized the parcel and prepared the mahazer. There are a lot of contradictions in the prosecution witnesses. Further, from the seized contraband, the police have taken three samples. In the samples, P1 S1 and P1 S2 the chemical report found no Opium and only in P1 S3 the chemical report shows that the third sample alone is Opium. When the three samples are taken from the seized 940 grams of Opium, with regard to P1 S1, P1 S2, the chemical report is negative and P1 S3 alone positive. It raises a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The trial Court failed to consider these facts and failed to appreciate the fact properly and found guilty and convicted the accused and this conviction is liable to be set aside. There is no evidence to prove the offence against the accused and thus, pleaded to acquit the accused.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for DRI submitted that the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked eighty two documents and filed four material objects. The prosecution proved the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The presumption under Sections 35 & 5