Benefit of doubt in NDPS prosecution where sole searching officer evidence was unsafe and uncorroborated by material witnesses.

Conviction under the NDPS Act could not rest on the searching officer's testimony alone where the panch witnesses, bus driver, and conductor did not support the prosecution version. The Court found material infirmities in the officer's account, and the alleged search and seizure were surrounded by circumstances that were unnatural and insufficiently explained. As the evidence did not inspire confidence and was unsafe to accept as the sole basis for guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was given the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of the searching officer alone when the panch witnesses and other material witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended essentially on the evidence of the narcotics sub-inspector who claimed to have effected the search and seizure. The panch witnesses did not support the alleged recovery, and the bus driver and conductor also did not corroborate the prosecution version. The account of the searching officer contained material infirmities and was found unsafe to accept as the sole basis for conviction. The circumstances surrounding the alleged search and seizure were found unnatural and insufficiently explained, and the evidence did not inspire confidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence.

---