Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.55 – Contraband goods – Recovery of – Conviction of respondentsaccused under s.20 and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Acquittal by High Court – State’s appeal against acquittal on the ground that High Court gave greater importance to trivial discrepancies in the prosecution case and without assigning any plausible reason allowed the appeals of accused – Held: The discrepancies in the prosecution case highlighted were the evidence of DW-1 that on the fateful day, police officials asked him to load gunny bags lying outside the abandoned house; the evidence of independent witnesses to the effect that they were not present at the spot when the incident took place and that they were called to police station and their signatures were taken on some papers – These discrepancies were major in character – The evidence is lacking support to establish that the contraband was really recovered from the possession of the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time – In view of number of discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses, the prosecution story appeared doubt – Prosecution having failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accusedrespondents are granted benefit of doubt – Interference with the order of acquittal not called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The record showed that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 55 of N.D.P.S. Act, the case property was accordingly tampered by the police. In the prescribed form, the place of seizure was mentioned as Nagwain and not Panarsa Bridge and the name of only one accused was shown from whom the contraband was said to have been seized while he was carrying three gunny bags. The name of other accused was added afterwards to justify the fact that one person could not have carried three bags of contraband at a time. In view of number of discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses, the entire prosecution story vitiated and led for discrediting its version. Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are fatal for the case, though minor discrepancies or variance in their evidence will not disfavour. Considering the circumstances of the case on hand, it can be said that the discrepancies are comparatively of a major character and go to the root of the prosecution story. These cannot therefore be ignored to give undue importance to the prosecution case. It is well settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. [Paras 11, 12][260-C-G]
2. The evidence is scanty and lacking support to establish that the contraband was really recovered from the possession of the respondents in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time. It is imperative that the law the Court should follow for awarding conviction under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is “stringent the punishment stricter the proof.” In such cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication. But, in the case on hand, under the circumstances, the prosecution story cannot be believed to award conviction to the accusedrespondents. They deserve benefit of doubt. [Para 13][261-A-C] State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 286; Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 91 – relied on.
Translations made available by the Supreme Court of India in its e-SCR, opened as PDF files from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments data set. A translation is for understanding the judgment; the English judgment is the authentic text for all official purposes.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
As listed in the Supreme Court Reports. Linked where the judgment is on LegalFirms.in.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
