Conscious possession in NDPS cases may be inferred from conduct and proximity, while sentence can be reduced on mitigating facts.

Reliable official witnesses can sustain an NDPS conviction where recovery is a chance recovery and independent witnesses were not practically available. The court accepted the police evidence as consistent, found no material contradiction or motive for false implication, and inferred conscious possession from the accused's conduct, proximity to the bags, and failure to explain his presence. The conviction for possession of poppy straw was therefore upheld. On sentence, the court considered the appellant's custody already undergone, family responsibilities, and the overall facts to reduce the term while keeping the conviction intact. The sentence was accordingly reduced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a lower fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction for possession of poppy straw was sustainable on the basis of official witnesses and the finding of conscious possession; (ii) whether the sentence required reduction on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether the conviction for possession of poppy straw was sustainable on the basis of official witnesses and the finding of conscious possession.

Analysis: The recovery was treated as a chance recovery during patrolling, leaving no real opportunity to secure independent witnesses. The testimony of police witnesses was found reliable, with no material contradiction, animus, or motive for false implication. The accused was seen dragging one bag from the field, and two more bags were found nearby. His conduct, proximity to the bags, and failure to explain his presence attracted the statutory presumption arising from possession under the NDPS framework.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the finding of conscious possession was sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence required reduction on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for a substantial period, had family responsibilities, and had already undergone a significant part of the sentence. These circumstances were considered sufficient to justify a lesser term while maintaining the conviction.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced from fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,50,000 to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of sentence reduction, while the conviction remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In an NDPS prosecution, recovery proved through reliable official witnesses may sustain conviction even without independent witnesses, and conscious possession can be inferred from the accused's conduct, proximity, and failure to explain possession; sentencing may nonetheless be moderated on compelling mitigating circumstances.

---