9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
- Conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act based on possession of brown sugar - Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence - Contradictions in witness statements - Failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a case where the appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing one gram of brown sugar. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of S.N. Tripathi (PW4) who received information about the appellant's possession of brown sugar and conducted the search resulting in the recovery. However, witnesses Raju Khanna (PW1) and Arjun Kumar (PW2) did not support the prosecution's version, leading to doubts regarding the reliability of the evidence presented. The defense argued that the trial court should have acquitted the accused due to the witnesses turning hostile. The Supreme Court analyzed the statements of all prosecution witnesses and found discrepancies and contradictions. PW1 and PW2 denied knowing the appellant and stated that their signatures were obtained by the police on some papers. The Head Constable of Police (PW3) received a sealed packet of brown sugar but failed to provide crucial details, and the constables accompanying PW4 were not presented as witnesses, further weakening the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court highlighted the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly noting that the information recorded by PW4 did not match the actual contents of Exhibit P13. Due to the glaring discrepancies and lack of reliability in the evidence presented, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, with immediate release if not required in any other case.
|
