TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Success: Conviction overturned due to evidence discrepancies and witness credibility issues.</h1> <h3>RAJESH JAGDAMBA AVASTHI Versus STATE OF GOA</h3> RAJESH JAGDAMBA AVASTHI Versus STATE OF GOA - 2005 AIR 1389, 2005 (9) SCC 773, 2004 (9) SCALE 539 Issues:1. Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.2. Discrepancies in the seal and weight of the recovered substance.3. Handling of seized substance and possibility of manipulation.4. Credibility of the recovery proceedings and prosecution's case.5. Reliability of witnesses, especially the panch witness.Analysis:1. The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. The appeal challenged the judgments of the lower courts.2. The case involved the recovery of Charas from the appellant's shoes based on information provided by another individual. Discrepancies arose regarding the seal on the envelopes containing the seized substance and the weight of the Charas recovered. The defense argued that these discrepancies raised doubts about the authenticity of the substance sent for chemical analysis.3. The defense further raised concerns about the handling of the seized substance by the investigating agency, suggesting the possibility of manipulation. The prosecution contended that the mandatory requirements of the Act were met, and minor discrepancies should not undermine the overall evidence.4. The court examined the evidence related to the seal, weight, and handling of the seized substance. It noted significant differences in the weight of Charas recovered and that received by the laboratory for analysis. The court found these discrepancies substantial and crucial to determining the credibility of the prosecution's case.5. Additionally, the reliability of witnesses, particularly the panch witness who had been involved in previous cases under the N.D.P.S. Act with the same investigating officer, raised concerns about potential bias or lack of impartiality. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained due to doubts surrounding the prosecution's case.6. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant, who had been released on bail, had their bail bonds discharged, bringing the legal proceedings to a close.
TaxTMI 