The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband by documenting the specimen seal on all relevant records, including the mahazar and forwarding note, to rule out tampering. Failure to prove these procedural safeguards entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Headnote:(A) Abkari Act - Sections 8(1) and 8(2) - Illegal possession of contraband - Principles of tamper-free collection and chain of custody - Prosecution must establish the integrity of the seized sample from collection to laboratory analysis - Requirements include description of the seal in the seizure mahazar and the provision of a specimen seal on the forwarding note. (Paras 9, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Evidence - Procedural Safeguards - Failure of the investigating officer to testify regarding the nature of the seal or to record the specimen seal in the mahazar and forwarding note casts doubt on whether the sample tested was the one recovered from the accused - Conviction cannot be sustained when chain of custody is not proven. (Paras 16, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the possession of prohibited liquor. The prosecution’s case relied on the recovery of the contraband and its subsequent chemical analysis. The appeal challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses in the handling of the seized sample, specifically the lack of evidence establishing a secure chain of custody.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the nature of the seals used or the transmission of specimen seals to the laboratory, thus failing to rule out the possibility of tampering.

Issues: Whether the prosecution followed the mandatory procedural requirements to ensure the integrity of the contraband sample and whether the failure to do so warrants an acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution is duty-bound to prove that the sample of contraband allegedly seized actually reached the laboratory without any possibility of tampering; reliance on the laboratory report is insufficient if the chain of custody proves defective due to the absence of documented specimen seals or failure to verify seal integrity.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

"C.R"

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

-----------------------------------------------------

Crl.Appeal No.18 of 2014

----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 10th day of September, 2021

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is at the instance of the 1st accused in S.C No.623/2012 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein. The judgment in the above case convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 8(1) r/w 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act is under challenge herein.

2. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2004 at about 6.30 p.m the 1st and 2nd accused were found carrying 5 litre of arrack near Govt. L.P.School, Thekkekara, Perunadu Village against the prohibitions contained in the Kerala Abkari Act. Both of them were nabbed redhandedly. Thereafter, crime registered alleging commission of offence under Section 8(1) r/w 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. On completing investigation, charge laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial and disposal. Later this case was made over to Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta for trial and disposal.

3. The trial court, after framing charge, recorded evidence in this matter. The evidence consists of PW1 to PW4, Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1 on the side of the prosecution. Thondy Clerk was examined as court witness (CW1).

4. Though the accused were given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning them under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, no defence evidence was adduced.

5. The learned Sessions Judge heard the matter and finally convicted and sentenced accused No.1 as under:

The accused is sentenced to undergo R1 for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh in default to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable u/s 8(1) r/w 8(2) of Abkari Act. A2 is acquitted u/s 235 Cr.P.C.

6. The above conviction and sentence are under challenge before this Court on multiple grounds.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Advocate Sri V.Philip Mathews and the learned Public Prosecutor Sri M.C.Ashi. Two technical grounds were argued by the learned counsel for the appellant to canvass acquittal. The learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer, who had drawn the sample from the accused, not given evidence as to the nature of seal affixed on the bottle containing the sample and the nature of seal used to affix in the seizure mahazar as well as the forwarding note. Therefore, the seizure itself is bad in law and as such conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor refuted this argument relying on the evidence of CW1 Thondy Clerk and PW4, the Investigating Officer.

8. While addressing this argument, I have perused the evidence of PW4, the Investigating Officer. PW4 generally supported the prosecution case in tune with the allegations regarding the arrest of accused 1 and 2 and consequential recovery. However, his deposition does not contain the relevant aspect as to whether who had drawn the sample, the nature of seal affixed on the bottle containing the sample and the nature of the seal affixed in the seizure mahazar as well as in the forwarding note.

9. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the Detecting Officer, who had drawn the sample, had to give evidence as to the nature of the seal affixed on the bottle containing the sample, nature of the seal used to affix on the seizure mahazar, etc. Further the Detecting Officer should also produce the specimen of the seal before the court. Moreover the specimen of the seal shall be provided under seizure mahazar in the forwarding note so as to ensure tamper free collection and production of sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58409

The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband by documenting the specimen seal on all relevant records, including the mahazar and forwarding note, to rule out tampering. Failure to prove these procedural safeguards entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Cases Referred (6)