Summary
The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for about 47 kg of ganja found in the boot of a car he was driving with a co-accused, who was acquitted. The conviction rested on the informant-investigating officer. The two independent search witnesses, both local panchayat councillors, denied any search or seizure and said their signatures were taken on documents at the police station during an unrelated visit. The Supreme Court acquitted him. Police evidence need not always be corroborated, but where independent witnesses give a plausible account that strikes at the search itself, the prosecution must be compelling. Here the officer's own timeline and notices were inconsistent, and the Section 54 presumption could not arise without proof of recovery.
Issues
- Whether an NDPS conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant-investigating officer when the independent search witnesses deny the search and seizure and plausibly explain their signatures
- Whether the Section 54 presumption arises when the recovery itself is in doubt, and whether the accused deserved the same benefit of doubt as the acquitted co-accused
Provisions considered
- Section 20(b)(ii)(C), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The conviction for possession of a commercial quantity of ganja was set aside because the search and seizure were doubtful. (¶¶ 1, 34)
- Section 54, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The presumption arises only once recovery from the accused is established. A doubt about the search and seizure prevents it. (¶¶ 17, 33-A)
Held
- An informant acting as investigator does not by itself vitiate an investigation. Police evidence need not always be corroborated, hostile independent witnesses do not automatically mean acquittal, and proof of recovery raises the Section 54 presumption. (¶ 17)
- Where corroboration is lacking and independent witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution story must be very convincing and the official witnesses notably trustworthy. If the prosecution claims a search in the presence of independent witnesses and examines them, the court must assess whether their hostile version is unbelievable. (¶ 18)
- The two witnesses, local councillors, not only denied presence but plausibly said their signatures were taken on blank documents at the police station during an unrelated dispute. The officer could not say when they arrived, his notice required one of them at the spot when it was only being dispatched, and his travel timings were improbable. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31)
- These features cast serious doubt on the search and seizure, which both courts below overlooked by applying the law in theory only. The prosecution had also accepted the co-accused's acquittal, though she travelled in the same car, and the appellant deserved the same benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 32, 33, 33-A, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; the conviction and sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine were set aside and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case; no costs.