9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge of conviction and sentence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act based on reliance on a report by a non-government scientific expert. Failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt regarding the recovery of opium from the appellant. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, arguing that the report relied upon by the court was not admissible as it was not by a government scientific expert as required by section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant cited previous judgments to support his contention that a report not under the hand of a qualified expert cannot be used as evidence without proper proof. However, the report in question was admitted in evidence without objection during the trial, and objections raised on appeal regarding its mode of proof were deemed untimely. The court emphasized that once a relevant document is admitted without challenge to its mode of proof, its admissibility cannot be contested later. Therefore, the objection to the report's admissibility on the grounds of formal proof was dismissed. Issue 2: The prosecution claimed that the appellant was apprehended with opium in his possession based on a search conducted in the presence of witnesses. However, discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses and investigating officers raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's version. Discrepancies regarding the date of recovery, the presence of officials during the search, and the handling of case property cast suspicion on the reliability of the prosecution's case. The court found these inconsistencies sufficient to question the credibility of the prosecution's narrative, leading to the appellant's conviction and sentence being set aside. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be in his favor, resulting in his immediate release if not required in another case. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural rules regarding the admissibility of evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The analysis underscored the significance of consistency in testimonies and proper documentation to ensure the integrity of the legal process.
|
