9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act based on non-examination of a crucial witness. Analysis: The appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge of Rajasthan High Court under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act. The respondent was initially convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh for possessing 6 Kg. of opium. The prosecution's case was based on a secret information received by PW.1, leading to the arrest of the respondent. The accused was searched, and opium was recovered from him, which was later confirmed by the FSL report. The trial court convicted the respondent based on this evidence. In the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction solely on the ground that a crucial witness, Jamnalal, who handled the samples, was not examined. The High Court deemed this non-examination as detrimental to the prosecution's case, raising doubts about possible tampering with the samples. However, the State argued that the entire process from seizure to submission at the FSL was meticulously followed, ensuring the integrity of the samples. The State contended that the non-examination of Jamnalal should not discredit the prosecution's case, especially when the seals were intact, as confirmed by the FSL report. The Supreme Court analyzed the sequence of events meticulously. It noted that the samples were sealed, deposited, and submitted to the FSL without any delay. The role of Jamnalal was limited to receiving and returning the samples, and the FSL report confirmed the integrity of the seals. Referring to the case of Hardip Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that even delays in sending samples to the laboratory do not invalidate the prosecution's case if the seals remain intact. The Court found the High Court's conclusion of possible tampering unfounded, given the FSL report's clear confirmation of the seals' integrity. Conclusively, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, reinstating the trial court's conviction. The respondent was directed to surrender and serve the remaining sentence. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction based on the established facts and legal principles.
|
