The reliability of evidence under NDPS Act hinges on corroboration by independent witnesses; lack of such can lead to acquittal.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

28/07/2025

1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under NDPS Act, 1985), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case No.19/13 whereby, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “ the NDPS Act, 1985”).

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.06.2013, at about 01:25 pm, secret information was received that respondent/accused is in illegal possession of contraband Ganja near Thakur Tola chowk falling within the ambit of police station Somni. The said information was recorded vide Ex.P/4 and the independent witnesses were called by Constable (PW-8) namely Vedram Khunte who gave notice (Ex.P/5) to witnesses namely Shyamu Yadav (PW-4) and to Jharokhelal (PW-7) vide Ex.P/24. In the presence of these two independent witnesses, seizure was made from the respondent/accused and contraband Ganja in plastic bags was recovered. The same was weighed by Govind (PW-1) vide Ex.P/2 and in five plastic bags total 89 kilograms 700 grams of contraband Ganja was found which was seized vide Ex.P/18. Patwari (PW-2) namely Ratiram Sahu prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/3. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/8. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. During trial, respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents.

5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C ., respondent/accused stated false implication and did not adduce any defense evidence.

6. After evaluating the evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence this acquittal appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State would submit that as there is reliable statement of the Investigating OfÏcer namely Yogita Kharpde (PW-9), therefore, finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the accused is absolutely unjustified. He prays to allow the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the State, considered his submission, and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal as also other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

9. It is well settled that even in the matter of independent witnesses turning hostile, cannot be a ground for acquittal under the NDPS Act. The said proposition has also been reiterated in the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , { (2020) 9 SCC 627 }. Similarly, it is also well settled that if evidence of a police ofÏcer is found to be reliable and trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon cannot be questioned. However, when the prosecution comes up with a story that at the time of search and seizure, there are two independent witnesses and both have turned hostile which creates a gapping hole in the prosecution theory about the very search and seizure, in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeet Kumar Singh Alias Munna Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh {(2022) 16 SCC 58} has materially observed at Para 18, which reads as under:

18. But if the Court has (i) to completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses by independent witnesses; and (ii) to turn a Nelson’s eye to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the prosecution should be very convincing and the testimony of the ofÏcial witnesses