Benefit of doubt in narcotics recovery case where improbable search narrative and withheld witness evidence defeated conviction.

A conviction under the NDPS Act could not be sustained where the recovery narrative was inherently improbable, the police version of discovery was unnatural, and material evidence was withheld. The Court treated the non-examination of the Sarpanch, a recovery witness, as an improper suppression of relevant evidence and held that the prosecution case was not fully and truly presented. On that basis, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The question of admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was noted but left undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of the alleged recovery and surrounding circumstances, or whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Analysis: The recovery story was found to be inherently improbable because the police first searched the kirana shop and found nothing incriminating, yet the prosecution version suggested that the accused voluntarily led the police to concealed narcotic substances in a room at his residence. The Court found the circumstances of recovery unnatural and doubted whether the facts had been fully and truly presented. The non-examination of the Sarpanch, who was one of the recovery witnesses, was also treated as an improper withholding of material evidence. The question of admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was noted but not decided.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was given the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was held insufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the recovery narrative is inherently improbable and material evidence is withheld, a criminal conviction cannot be sustained and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---