Material contradictions in official testimony creating reasonable doubt warrant acquittal in NDPS prosecution.

The State appealed against the respondents’ acquittal by the Special Judge, Kullu, in a prosecution under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that on 10 January 2011, a police party intercepted motorcycle No. HP-34B-2448 during naka duty.

Jeet Ram was allegedly driving the motorcycle, while Bheema Kali was riding pillion, with a blue bag between them.

Police claimed to have recovered 2.2 kilograms of charas from an orange handbag kept inside the blue bag.

Bheema Kali was arrested subsequently on 15 February 2011.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, principally the police officials present at the alleged recovery, while the defence examined one witness.

The Trial Court acquitted both respondents for want of reliable evidence, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that charas weighing 2.2 kilograms was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the respondents in circumstances attracting Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the contradictions and improbabilities in the testimony of the police witnesses and the alleged recovery procedure entitled the respondents to the benefit of doubt.

3. Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court warranted interference in the State’s appeal.

The Court applied Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which criminalise possession of cannabis/charas and abetment or criminal conspiracy relating to an NDPS offence, respectively.

The prosecution was required to establish the alleged recovery, identity of the contraband, possession and connection of each accused with the recovered substance beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied the fundamental criminal-law principle that the accused must receive the benefit of reasonable doubt where the prosecution evidence is unreliable or materially contradictory.

It also applied the appellate principle that an accused acquitted by the Trial Court enjoys a reinforced presumption of innocence, and interference with acquittal is unjustified where the prosecution has not produced cogent, reliable and convincing evidence.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the accounts of PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 concerning whether the motorcycle slowed or stopped, the sequence of the chase, and the circumstances in which Bheema Kali allegedly escaped.

It considered it improbable that the motorcycle, while being chased by an official vehicle, stopped approximately 20 metres away, enabled the pillion rider to flee, and then continued with the bag remaining securely on the motorcycle after the pillion rider had alighted.

The timeline also undermined the prosecution case: PW-7 allegedly left the spot at 9:45 p.m. with the ruqua, whereas Jeet Ram’s personal-search memo was stated to have been witnessed by PW-7 at approximately 10:50 p.m.; the Court held that PW-7 could not have been present for that search.

Further discrepancies included the unexplained presence of Jeet Ram’s signature on Bheema Kali’s arrest memo, the omission of the blue and orange bags from the FSL report, PW-5’s failure to depose about the personal search despite being shown as a witness, and uncertainty regarding Bheema Kali’s identification.

These defects were not treated as minor irregularities but as circumstances indicating that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

Since the principal recovery witnesses were thereby rendered unreliable, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that the evidence did not reliably establish the alleged recovery of charas from the respondents or their criminal liability under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The respondents were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the acquittal was further protected by the reinforced presumption of innocence applicable in an appeal against acquittal.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, bail bonds were discharged, and the Trial Court record was ordered to be returned.