Prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody for contraband samples; failure to do so warrants acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Appellant was the accused in S.C. No.1128 of 2008 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. By judgment dated 04.04.2015, the accused was found guilty for the offences under Sections 8 (1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act , 1077, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, apart from default sentence. Appellant challenges the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution alleged that, on 16.02.2008, the accused was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack in a black jerrycan having a capacity of 10 litres while he was standing by the side of Alanada–

Punnakkadu road and thereby committed the offences alleged. 3. In order to prove the prosecution case, they examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exhibit-P1 to Exhibit-P9, apart from MO1. After analysing the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Prosecution allegations as borne out from the evidence adduced indicate that the accused was found to be in possession of 5 litres of arrack in a black jerrycan on a public road. In order to substantiate their allegations, the sample of the seized contraband was forwarded for chemical analysis along with Exhibit-P7 forwarding note through an Excise Guard by name Sri. T. Raveendran. The said forwarding note is undated, while Exhibit-P8 Forensic Science Laboratory’s report indicates that the sample was received through Sri. T. Raveendran on 07.03.2008.

6. The prosecution allegation itself indicates that the contraband was allegedly seized from the accused on 16.02.2008, while the sample was received by the chemical analysis laboratory only on 07.03.2008. During the period in-between the date of detection and the date of receipt of sample for analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the custody of the contraband was with some person. The Excise Guard Sri. T. Raveendran is stated as having handed over the sample of the contraband to the scientific laboratory as per Exhibit-P8. However, the person who was in custody of the contraband till the date of handing over to the said laboratory was not examined. The burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove that the alleged contraband was not only seized but was kept in a tamper-proof condition under the custody of a proper person.

7. In the decision inKumaran P. v. State of Kerala and Another [ 2016 (5) KHC 632 ] as well as inBaby v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KLT Online 2282 ] this Court had observed that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that the sample drawn from the spot remained in safe custody until it reached the hands of the chemical examiner for analysis. It has further been observed that only when a secure and uninterrupted chain of custody is proved can it be held that the sample analysed was the very same sample drawn from the contraband allegedly seized from the accused.

8. In the instant case, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the custody of the contraband from the date of detection till it was handed over to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The prosecution also failed to examine either the Thondi Clerk or even the Excise Guard, who carried the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the absence of such witnesses having been examined, evidence regarding tamper-proof despatch of the sample of contraband from the Court and during transit till it reached the laboratory cannot be said to be proved. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt is to be accorded to the accused.

9. The witnesses ex