Material Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence and Procedural Lapses Entitle Accused to Benefit of Doubt

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge-1, Kullu, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of 5 kg of Charas.

On 26.07.2019, the police intercepted an HRTC bus where the Appellant and another woman (Rani) were seated.

Following the search of Rani, the police allegedly obtained the Appellant's consent for a personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the presence of a Gazetted Officer (PW-3).

While Rani was searched first, the prosecution claimed the Appellant was searched later (around 2:20 PM) after the arrival of additional police personnel.

The search allegedly yielded 5.025 kg of Charas tied around her waist.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of significant contradictions regarding the timing of search and seizure?

2. Whether there was a valid compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the mandatory procedure for personal search?

3. Whether the procedural discrepancies in documentation (NCB forms, Consent Memos, and Arrest Memos) vitiate the prosecution’s case?

Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of cannabis.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

The established criminal jurisprudence principle that the prosecution must prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt".

As the punishment becomes more stringent, the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the case with cogent and reliable evidence becomes greater.

The Court found the prosecution's narrative irreconcilable due to major chronological discrepancies. For instance, the Investigating Officer (PW-9) claimed the bus arrived at 12:05 AM, while other witnesses stated 7:05 AM.

Crucially, the Gazetted Officer (PW-3) testified that both suspects were searched together at 10:30 AM and she left by 2:00 PM, contradicting the police claim that the Appellant was not searched until after 2:20 PM.

The Court noted severe flaws in the Consent Memo (Ext. P2/PW9), observing it was a "filled-in" printed proforma with confusing signatures, gender-incorrect phrasing ("chahata" instead of "chahati"), and the inclusion of an FIR number before the FIR was actually registered.

The court observed that independent witnesses failed to corroborate the search details and several present police officials were not examined, leading to the conclusion that the records were likely concocted elsewhere.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 07.08.2023; the Appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith from custody, with directions for refund of fine and a personal bond under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.