Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.20 r/w. s.29 – Conviction under – Propriety of – On 27.01.2009 a police party on patroling duty on National Highway 21 on ManaliKullu road, signaled a car to stop – Vehicle stopped and a person allegedly fled away from the car, while accused-respondent nos.1 and 2 were found sitting in the car – On search, rucksack containing cannabis mixture found from the car – Trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for offences u/s. 20 r/w. s.29 – High Court in appeal reversed the order of conviction on the ground that prosecution did not discharge its burden of examining independent witnesses in support of its case and that the contraband article was produced before trial court in a torn condition raising serious doubt about its authenticity – Held: Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case – In the present case, according to the prosecution, independent witnesses were not available to witness the recovery of contraband due to extreme cold – In absence of any animosity between the police party and the accused and having regard to the large quantity of contraband that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), it is unlikely that the contraband was planted/foisted in the vehicle of accused persons – Further, w.r.t. condition of the contraband parcel, the prosecution witnesses examined in this regard testified that the parcel was in a torn condition due to its bulky nature and also due to nails on the stool on which it was kept – Order of High Court is set aside and that of trial court convicting and sentencing the accused-respondents, restored. Evidence – Independent witnesses – Non-examination of – Discussed.
ETC.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, according to the prosecution, independent witnesses were not available to witness the recovery of the contraband due to extreme cold. The fact that the incident took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 27-01-2009 and that too on the Manali-Kulu road may lend credence to the prosecution version of its inability to produce independent witnesses. In the absence of any animosity between the police party and the accused and having regard to the large quantity of contraband that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), it is unlikely that the contraband had been planted/foisted in the vehicle of the accused persons. In so far as the condition of the contraband parcel is concerned, the materials on record indicate that the said parcel was brought to the trial Court on 15-9-2009 in a torn condition. The prosecution witnesses examined in this regard had testified that the parcel was in a torn condition due to its bulky nature and also due to nails on the stool on which it was kept. In this regard, it may also be noted that the samples from the contraband parcel were sent to the Forensic Laboratory on 23.7.2010. No suggestion was given to the witnesses (PWs 12 and 13) who had taken the samples to the laboratory that the contraband parcel had been tampered with. PW-16, who had chemically examined the contraband samples, was fully crossexamined by the defence. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that the sample(s) came to him in a torn or otherwise doubtful condition. The grounds on which the High Court had reversed the findings of conviction of the accused-respondents ought not to be accepted. [Para 6][659-E-H; 660-A-B]
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.
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.