Summary
The Supreme Court upheld acquittal in an NDPS prosecution because the alleged recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The panch witnesses contradicted the intelligence officer’s account and said the suitcase was already open when they arrived; they signed documents without knowing the contents. The officer’s impaired evidence could not safely sustain conviction, and exclusive reliance on the accused’s retracted Section 67 statement was unsafe in those circumstances. The Union’s appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether contradictions surrounding the baggage search and seizure justified interference with the acquittal.
Held
- The independent witnesses said the suitcase was already open when they arrived and the panchnama was not read to them. They signed papers and packets without knowledge of the contents; the officer did not establish opening the bag in their presence. Their evidence materially contradicted the prosecution account. (¶ 10)
- The prosecution depended on recovery, which was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On these facts exclusive reliance on the accused’s Section 67 statement, retracted on 29 June 2004, was neither prudent nor safe. The decision addressed evidentiary sufficiency in this case rather than deciding a general rule about all Section 67 statements. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Official testimony impaired by these infirmities could not safely be the sole basis of conviction. The High Court correctly acquitted, and no reason for interference was shown. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Union’s appeal dismissed; respondent’s acquittal affirmed.