Appeal against acquittal under NDPS law requires clear proof of identification and conscious possession, not suspicion.
In an appeal against acquittal under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court held that interference is justified only when the trial court's view is not reasonably possible. The prosecution relied mainly on identification of the fleeing driver and recovery of the appellant's passbook from the vehicle, but the witnesses did not know the appellant earlier, gave inconsistent descriptions, no test identification parade was held, and the contemporaneous material was unreliable. The passbook recovery alone did not prove that the appellant was the driver or in conscious possession of the contraband. The Court set aside the conviction and restored the acquittal.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the basis of identification evidence and recovery of the appellant's passbook from the vehicle.
Analysis: The prosecution case depended chiefly on the identification of the fleeing driver and the recovery of the appellant's bank passbook from the vehicle. The identifying witnesses did not know the appellant earlier, gave only limited and inconsistent descriptions of the person seen in the search light, and no test identification parade was held. The contemporaneous documents and photographs were found to be unreliable, and the recovery of the passbook by itself did not conclusively establish that the appellant was the driver in conscious possession of the contraband. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is not a reasonably possible one. Where the trial court's appreciation is plausible, the presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal must prevail.
Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the acquittal. The conviction was set aside and the appellant's acquittal was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a conviction cannot rest on suspicion or a solitary incriminating circumstance unless the prosecution proves identification and conscious possession by clear, cogent and reliable evidence, and a reasonably possible view taken by the trial court must not be displaced.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
