Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8(c), 23 – Contraband goods – Recovery of hashish weighing
12.03 kg from respondent no.1 – Conviction under ss.8(c), 23 – High Court acquitted respondent no.1 of all charges on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the panchas were present during seizure procedure and the testimony of intelligence officer (PW-1) relied upon by trial court was highly inconsistent and full of contradictions – On appeal, held: Evidence of independent witnesses contradicted the statement of PW-1 – They categorically stated that they were called by PW-1 and by the time they reached, the bag was already opened – The Panchanama was not read over to them and they were asked to sign on number of papers and they were not aware of the contents – When the statement of official statement is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused – High Court rightly acquitted respondent No.1. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Both PW-8 and PW-9 have categorically stated that, when they were called by the Intelligence Officer (PW-1) and by the time they reached, the bag was already opened. Further it was admitted by them that, the panchanama was not read over to them. They were asked to sign on number of papers and they were not aware of the contents. Moreover, PW-1 i.e., the intelligence officer did not state that the bag containing the narcotic substance was opened in the presence of panchas. The cross-examination of PW-9 clearly revealed that he did not agree to the contents of the panchanama with respect to the fact that the search and inspection of the baggage took place in his presence. His signatures obtained on the panchanama were not voluntarily put. The entire case of the prosecution hinged on the alleged recovery of the narcotic substance from respondent no.
1 but, this very fact was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as independent witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 portrayed a different story as to the recovery and seizure. In the facts and circumstances of this case exclusive reliance on the statement made by respondent no. 1 would neither be prudent nor safe; especially considering the fact that, the statement of respondent no. 1 procured under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was retracted. [Paras 10, 11] [659-EG; 660-B-D]
2. The statement of the official witness PW-1 cannot be the sole basis for convicting respondent no. 1. When the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused. In the present case, the statements of the independent panch witnesses depict a different picture than the one portrayed by the official witness PW-1. The High Court had rightly acquitted the respondent no.1 taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. [Paras 12, 13] [660-D-F]
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.