Punjab and Haryana High Court acquits Gurpreet Singh in NDPS case over link evidence lapses

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has set aside the conviction and sentence of Gurpreet Singh, who was earlier sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the appeal, held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of link evidence, leaving the case riddled with doubts over the integrity of the seized sample.

A flawed recovery narrative

The case began on 17 January 2011, when police officials claimed to have apprehended Gurpreet Singh near a tree in Batala and recovered 520 grams of intoxicant powder — Dextropropoxyphene mixed with Paracetamol — from his pocket. Despite the accused expressing dissent against being searched by a Gazetted Officer, a DSP was called to the spot, and the search proceeded. The trial court, relying on police testimony, convicted Singh, but the High Court found the foundation of the conviction to be shaky.

Key arguments on appeal

With the appellant's counsel absent, the court appointed Amit Sharma as Amicus Curiae, who forcefully argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had been flouted. He pointed to the lack of an independent witness, a delay of 12 days in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The State, represented by Mohit Thakur, defended the conviction, asserting that the recovery and investigation were lawful.

Cracks in the prosecution’s evidence

Justice Monga's judgment meticulously examined the testimony of key witnesses. PW-6, DSP Gurmit Singh, who was present at the spot, admitted that no effort was made to join any independent member of the public. This contradicted the claims of other police witnesses who stated they had tried but failed to find a witness. The court found this admission “difficult to believe” and noted that it raised “considerable doubt in the narrative of recovery.”

Further, the court highlighted the prosecution's failure to produce the malkhana register — a critical document that would have shown the movement of the seized substance and samples. SHO Parlad Singh, who kept the case property, could not recall if any entries were made. “The absence of these entries has thus left the chain of required link evidence incomplete, casting doubts over the same,” the judgment observed.

Seals and the risk of tampering

One of the most damaging aspects for the prosecution was the handling of seals. The sample parcels bore the seals of three officials — SI Balwinder Singh (‘BS’), DSP Gurmit Singh (‘GS’), and SHO Parlad Singh (‘PS’). Yet, none of the officers deposed that their seals remained with them after use, and HC Sardool Singh, who was entrusted with the DSP's seal, was given up as a witness. The court reasoned that it was possible for these interested officers to have tampered with the samples during the 14 days between recovery and deposit at the Chemical Examiner's office. Moreover, the Chemical Examiner's report did not mention that the seals were tallied or found intact.

The seminal precedent on link evidence

The High Court drew strength from the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh (2005), where the apex court had quashed a conviction on similar grounds — failure to produce the malkhana register and absence of sample seals for comparison. Justice Monga noted that the legal requirements for proof of charge must be applied with equal rigour when the penalty is as severe as ten years' imprisonment.

Key observations from the bench

The judgment delivered several pointed observations:

  • “Given the aforesaid admission of PW-6 Gurmit Singh DSP, it is difficult to believe the explanation given by PWs… That, in turn, arises considerable doubt in the narrative of recovery…”
  • “The absence of these entries has thus left the chain of required link evidence incomplete, casting doubts over the same.”
  • “It is, therefore, difficult to rule out the reasonable possibility of the sample parcel having been tampered with, by reusing of the seals by the aforesaid police officials…”
  • “In the light of gaps in evidence, there is insufficient proof to convincingly establish that the seals on the sample parcels were the original seals affixed at the time of seizure.”
  • “The prosecution infirmities were/are fatal to the case against appellant and the learned trial Court erred in ignoring them while recording a finding of conviction against the appellant.”

The final order

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5 February 2015 passed by the Special Judge (Ad hoc), Special Court, Gurdaspur. Gurpreet Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, and his bail bonds were discharged. The court also recorded its appreciation for the Amicus Curiae for his pro bono assistance.

The decision serves as a firm reminder that in drug cases, the prosecution must produce unbroken link evidence from seizure to laboratory. Any gap in the chain may lead to an acquittal, regardless of the quantity of contraband recovered.