An acquittal based on a possible view of evidence cannot be disturbed absent perversity.

On 19 December 2015, an accidented, unnumbered Maruti Ciaz was found near Senderi Bypass, Police Station Koni.

The police allegedly recovered 105 packets of ganja weighing 1 quintal 6 kg 400 grams from the vehicle, drew samples, and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed the substance as ganja.

The vehicle was traced to respondent Ramadhar Rathore through its engine and chassis numbers and the dealer’s invoice; he was arrested on 3 October 2017 and prosecuted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The two independent seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution and stated that their signatures had been obtained at the police station.

The Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bilaspur, acquitted the respondent on 8 May 2019, finding material inconsistencies in the recovery, seizure, sampling, chain of custody, and proof of conscious possession.

The State preferred an acquittal appeal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence so as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the recovery and lawful seizure of the ganja from the vehicle, including the integrity of the samples and chain of custody.

Whether the respondent was proved to have been in conscious possession of the contraband merely because the vehicle had allegedly been sold to him.

The Court applied Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, requiring proof of possession of commercial quantity of cannabis and criminal conspiracy, respectively.

The prosecution was required to establish a reliable recovery, proper seizure and sampling, an unbroken chain of custody, and conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence but should interfere only where the acquittal is perverse, impossible, or wholly unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal and the accused’s reinforced presumption of innocence must be preserved.

The Court relied on Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, and Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440.

The Court held that the trial court had assigned cogent reasons for acquittal.

The prosecution documents materially contradicted one another regarding whether eight packets were found on the back seat, under the seat, or whether all 105 packets were on the back seat.

No search panchnama explained who searched the car or how the locked dickey was opened, creating doubt about the manner and place of recovery.

The unexplained delay in preparing the seizure memo, inconsistencies concerning the presence and movement of independent witnesses, and uncertainty regarding the authorship of the investigation papers further undermined the prosecution case.

The Court also found an impossible chronology concerning weighment and seizure, absence of proper malkhana documentation and sealing, discrepancies between the sample markings in the FSL correspondence and the FSL report, and failure to investigate the Samsung mobile phone recovered from the car.

Since the vehicle was abandoned and accidented, no witness saw the respondent driving or possessing it, and ownership traced through the invoice did not establish his conscious possession on the date of recovery.

Accordingly, the trial court’s view was a possible view on the evidence and was neither perverse nor impossible.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove a reliable recovery, an intact chain of custody, and the respondent’s conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

The acquittal dated 8 May 2019 was found to be a lawful and possible view supported by the evidence.

The State’s acquittal appeal was therefore dismissed at the admission stage, and the respondent’s acquittal was affirmed.