Uncorroborated NDPS recovery evidence cannot sustain conviction when key witnesses are withheld and reasonable doubt remains.

Conviction under the NDPS Act was found unsafe where the prosecution relied mainly on the investigating officer's testimony without corroboration from other raiding officers or independent public witnesses. The non-examination of key witnesses, coupled with the absence of a convincing explanation, weakened the recovery version and created reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the secret information was not properly recorded and that the surrounding circumstances of the alleged recovery and possession were doubtful. In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt resulted in acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained on the solitary testimony of the investigating officer in the absence of corroboration from the raiding team and independent public witnesses, and whether the investigation and recovery proceedings created reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of the investigating officer, but none of the other material members of the raiding team who were present at the alleged recovery were examined. The independent public witnesses said to have joined the search were also not produced, and their non-examination, without a convincing explanation, undermined the prosecution version. The Court found that the secret information was not properly recorded in a regular register, the surrounding circumstances of the alleged recovery were doubtful, and the investigation suffered from material omissions, including the absence of reliable corroboration of the alleged conspiracy and possession. In prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the solitary statement of an interested investigating officer, in these circumstances, was held insufficient.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt.

---