Summary
The State challenged acquittal of two accused prosecuted for possession of charas. The Court found major contradictions in the alleged seizure, weighing, sampling and custody of the contraband, supported by defence evidence. Recovery from the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether discrepancies in the prosecution evidence undermined proof of recovery sufficiently to sustain acquittal.
Held
- Minor discrepancies do not necessarily discredit testimony, but these contradictions concerned the core recovery narrative, including independent witnesses denying presence, inconsistent weighing and deposit accounts, and discrepancies in the seizure record. (¶ 8–12)
- The stringent punishment under the NDPS Act demands strict proof and careful scrutiny against false implication. On this evidence, possession and recovery in the alleged manner were not established beyond reasonable doubt; the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. (¶ 13)
Result
State appeals dismissed; the High Court’s acquittals upheld.