2001 (12) TMI 393 - SC - Customs

Conviction under NDPS Act on the sole testimony of police witness not justified - Seizure - Recovery of contrabands

Summary

Issues:
Conviction and sentence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on recovery and seizure of contraband solely on the testimony of Investigating Officer.

Analysis:
The appellant, along with another individual, was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for carrying poppy straw in a truck. The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of poppy straw from the truck, witnessed by two individuals. However, only one witness supported the prosecution, while the other was declared hostile. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer, creating doubts about the reliability of the evidence presented.

The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish the recovery and seizure of the contraband. Significant material discrepancies were highlighted in the evidence related to the recovery and seizure process. These included discrepancies in witness statements regarding the events leading to the seizure, as well as inconsistencies in the entries made in official records regarding the deposit of the seized material. The prosecution's failure to address these inconsistencies raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented.

One of the key discrepancies involved the seizure of a significant amount of money from the accused, which was later disputed by the Investigating Officer himself. The trial judge noted inconsistencies in the documentation related to the seizure of the money and raised concerns about the timing and authenticity of the entries made in the records. These discrepancies further undermined the prosecution's case and cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence presented.

Considering the various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant could not be convicted solely based on the testimony of police witnesses, especially when the recovery of the contraband was in question. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Special Court, acquitting the appellant based on the lack of conclusive evidence and the presence of material discrepancies in the case presented.