2010 (4) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian Laws

Delay in sending samples for forensic - Appeal against Acquittal - Upon completion of trial, trial court passed judgment convicting respondents under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 High court vide impugned order acquitted respondent of charge under Section 15 Held that - Section 15 makes possession of contraband articles an offence Evidence led by prosecution to establish that respondents were found sitting on aforesaid bags of poppy husk Sub-Inspector also stated that presence of accused respondents at such early hour near religious place with such large number of bags and their sitting on them and on seeing police party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind bags prove and establish that they were in possession of aforesaid bags Admittedly there was merely delay of about seven days in sending samples to Forensic Examiner and it is not proved as to how aforesaid delay of seven days has affected said examination when it could not be proved that seal of sample was in any manner tampered with Current Court in Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (8) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT condoned delay of about 40 days in sending sample to laboratory after same was seized In our considered opinion, ratio of aforesaid decision squarely applies to facts of present case Respondents hereby directed to surrender forthwith and undergo remaining term of imprisonment as directed by trial Court Impugned order of acquittal set-aside Decided in favour of Appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
2. Alleged discrepancies in the prosecution case.
3. Conscious possession of contraband.
4. Delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana:
The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's judgment dated 20.08.2007, which acquitted the respondents under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The High Court reversed the trial Court's conviction and sentence, which had sentenced the respondents to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, with an additional two years of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Alleged Discrepancies in the Prosecution Case:
The High Court identified several discrepancies in the prosecution's case, which led to the acquittal:
- The seal used on the seized contraband was reportedly handed over to different individuals by different witnesses.
- The DSP, who was called at the respondents' request for the search, was not brought as a witness.
- The vehicle details used by the police officials were not provided.
- Delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory raised concerns about potential tampering.

The Supreme Court found these discrepancies to be minor and not affecting the core of the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the respondents' possession of the contraband.

3. Conscious Possession of Contraband:
The Supreme Court emphasized the legal principle that possession under Section 15 of the NDPS Act implies conscious possession. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Inder Sain v. State of Punjab and Madan Lal v. State of H.P., to clarify that the burden of proving lack of conscious possession lies on the accused once possession is established.

In this case, the respondents were found sitting on the bags containing poppy husk and attempted to hide upon seeing the police. This conduct, along with the evidence presented, led the Court to conclude that the respondents were in conscious possession of the contraband.

4. Delay in Sending Samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory:
The High Court had considered the delay of seven days in sending the samples to the laboratory as potentially allowing for tampering. However, the Supreme Court referenced the case of Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, where a delay of 40 days was not deemed fatal due to reliable evidence that the samples remained intact.

The Supreme Court found no evidence of tampering and noted that the seal was intact when examined by the Chemical Examiner. Thus, the delay did not undermine the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's acquittal was "palpably wrong and perverse." The discrepancies noted by the High Court were deemed minor and did not affect the prosecution's case. The evidence established that the respondents were in conscious possession of the contraband, and the delay in sending samples did not indicate tampering. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial Court's conviction and sentence. The respondents were directed to surrender and serve the remaining term of imprisonment.

← Previous Next →