The High Court allowed an appeal in a narcotics case, acquitting the appellant due to untrustworthy prosecution documents, discrepancies in witness statements, and failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt under the NDPS Act.
Appellant acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds discharged; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 16/09/2021
Order Delivered on 08/10/2021
CRA No. 1027 of 2004
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Adv. For State/Respondent : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, PL.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
Date : 08/10/2021
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20 (b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S.R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default of payment additional R.I. for 1 year.
2
aware of his valuable right to search before any Magistrate or gazetted ofÏcer. Thereafter, search panchnama of police was prepared vide Ex.P/6, search panchnama of appellant was prepared vide Ex.P/7 and ganja was found in possession of appellant vide Ex.P/8, same was identified vide Ex.P/9, weighed vide Ex.P/1 but quantity has not been mentioned, samples thereof were seized vide Ex.P/10 and articles were seized vide Ex.P./11. During the course of investigation, appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/12, dehati nalshi was prepared vide Ex.P/17 and on the basis of which FIR Ex.P/19 was registered, after seizure, the investigating OfÏcer sent sample of seized article in two different packets containing 30 grams each for chemical examination to FSL vide Ex.P/22. The report of FSL was obtained and article marked as 'A' was found Ganja vide Ex.P/24.
3
the bus and they had demanded money from him and when he failed to satisfy their greed he was implicated in the present case. Thereafter, he submits that the notice regarding arrest vide Ex.P/20 bears the date to be 28.01.2004 whereas the case of the prosecution the appellant was arrested on 29.01.2004 and a seizure was made from him. Investigating OfÏcer Harinandan Singh (PW-5) had stated that in the arrest memo the date is mentioned as 28.01.2004. He gives an explanation that by mistake he had written the date as 28.01.2004 instead of 29.01.2004. This very fact speaks volume regarding falsity of present case. He lastly submits that the contraband was recovered on 29.01.2004, the samples were sent to forensic science laboratory on 31.01.2004 same was received in the laboratory on 03.02.2004. The seal was lying in the possession of I.O. The distance between Jagdalpur and Raipur is only 297 Km. The prosecution has not explained the delay in transmitting and receipt of the sample in Forensic Science Laboratory same is fatal to the prosecution case. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P/24 is not admissible in evidence as the person who had given the report was not produced by the prosecution in evidence and he is not an ofÏcer exempted from giving evidence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/12, part A to A and Ex.P/1, part B to B was signed by him.
He has stated in his cross examination that :
4
eSa dksVokj gwa vkSj jkst vkuk tkuk gksrk gS blfy, iwjk LVkQ dks tkurk gwa vkSj LVkQ okys eq>s Hkh tkurs gSaA esjk [ksr Nqjkxkao ds ikl tks [ksrh gS ogha ij gSA iqfyl us eq>s ml fnu lqcg gh Fkkuk cqyk fy;s FksA igys fnu lqcg 8 cts cqyk;s Fks nwljs fnu fQj 12 cts cqyk;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus nLr[kr nwljs fnu fd;k FkkA ?kVuk fnukad dks nLr[kr ugha fd;k FkkA rkSy oxSjg Fkkus esa gqvk FkkA fdlds ikl 8 fdyks vkSj fdlds ikl 5 fdyks Fkk eq>s ugha ekyweA
10. Buti (PW-3) has stated in his statement as under ;
Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/12, part B to B and Ex.P/1 part C to C was signed by him.
He has stated in his cross examination that :
12 . In this case weighed panchnama (Ex.P/1) which was prepared by I.O. and weighed by Mukesh Mishra (PW-1), it clearly reveals the fact that weighed panchnama (Ex.P/1) was signed by Harinandan Singh (PW5) but quantity of ganja was not mentioned by him and in Mukhbir panchnama (Ex.P-2) name of co-accused Khilawan is not mentioned and instead of his name the name of appellant Chituram is mentioned. At the first instance, from these two documents, proceeding of prosecution clearly creates suspicion. In other statement which is given by Harinandan Singh (PW-5), proceedings of Ex.P/3 to Ex.P-12 has been completed by him but the question remained for consideration is that quantity of weighed ganja has not been mentioned in weighed panchnama. Thus, it is very difÏcult to hold that how much quantity of
5
ganja was seized. Even otherwise, independent witness Jagananth (PW2) has stated that he has signed the document on the next day of incident whereas Buti (PW-3) has stated that he has signed documents on the way, when he reached near the tamarind tree at village Churagaon.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
H.L. Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given discrepancies in weighing documents and witness statements.
Whether non-compliance of mandatory provisions regarding notice and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case.
Whether the evidence regarding quantity of seized ganja was reliable and trustworthy.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Chaitu Ram Verma
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
