2004 (11) TMI 558 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Success: Conviction overturned due to evidence discrepancies and witness credibility issues.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The court found ... Conviction orders - Held that:- From the evidence of PW-4 that he had taken the seal from PSI Thorat and after preparing the seizure report, panchnama, etc. he carried both the packets to the police station and handed over the packets as well as the seal to Inspector Yadav. According to him on the next day, he took back the packets from the police station and sent them to PW-3, Manohar Joshi, Scientific Assistant in the Crime Branch, who forwarded the same to PW-1 for chemical analysis. In these circumstances, there is justification for the argument that since the seal as well as the packets were in the custody of the same person; there was every possibility of the seized substance being tampered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. PW-2, the panch witness associated in this case appears to be a stock witness. The other panch witness has not been examined. PW-2 admitted in very clear terms that he was earlier associated in two other cases under N.D.P.S. Act as panch witness. In both those cases, PSI Thorat was the investigating officer. On 14 the December, 1994, he had been summoned by PSI Thorat and acted as a panch witness in the case against P.C. Kulbi, who as noticed earlier disclosed the complicity of the appellant. Thereafter, in the instant case, he was requested by PW-4 to act as a panch witness. It appears that PSI Thorat was also associated with this case as he was present with PW-4 when P.C. Kulbi was apprehended and thereafter when the appellant herein was apprehended and searched at the instance of the aforesaid Kulbi. Thus in view of the aforesaid features of the case, we find it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 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.