9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence Upheld by High Court The appellant was convicted for possession of opium based on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Dudhnath Ram and subsequent chemical examination. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. Issue 2: Lack of Corroborative Evidence During the appeal, it was noted that key witnesses, including the panch witnesses and bus staff, did not support the prosecution's case. The sole testimony of PW-1 was found to have inconsistencies and lacked corroboration. Issue 3: Unexplained Actions of the Investigating Officer The investigating officer's actions raised doubts as to why only the appellant was singled out for search without prior information or suspicion. The lack of thorough investigation and selective targeting of the appellant cast doubt on the validity of the seizure. Issue 4: Contradictory Testimonies of Witnesses Discrepancies in the testimonies of the panch witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case. Discrepancies included differing accounts of the search and seizure process, leading to a lack of confidence in the evidence presented. Final Decision: After careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence, the appellant was acquitted, benefiting from the doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless required in another case. The appeal was allowed.
|
