Doubtful recovery in NDPS prosecution defeats interference with acquittal when evidence appraisal is not perverse.

In an appeal against acquittal in an NDPS prosecution, interference is unwarranted where the High Court's finding that the alleged recovery was doubtful rests on a detailed appraisal of evidence and is not shown to be perverse. The High Court relied on inconsistencies in the prosecution version, unnatural features in the recovery, and an incomplete chain of circumstances; those defects went to the root of the case and undermined the veracity of the recovery. Even if there was debate on Section 50 compliance or the admissibility of the FSL report, the doubtful recovery finding remained intact, so the acquittal was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court on the basis of doubtful recovery and unreliable prosecution evidence in an NDPS prosecution called for interference.

Analysis: The High Court had relied upon the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the doubtful circumstances of recovery, and the incomplete chain of circumstances. The Court held that, even if there could be some debate on the admissibility of the FSL report or compliance with Section 50, the finding that the recovery itself was doubtful was not displaced. The High Court had undertaken a detailed appreciation of evidence and found material inconsistencies and unnatural features in the prosecution version, which went to the root of the case and cast serious doubt on the veracity of the recovery.

Conclusion: The acquittal was justified and no ground for interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, where the High Court's conclusion that the alleged recovery is doubtful is supported by a thorough appraisal of evidence and is not shown to be perverse, interference is unwarranted.

---