Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Mar 20: As the prosecution has adduced contradictory evidence and mishandled the case, High Court upheld the acquittal of a drug peddler and dismissed the appeal of State challenging the acquittal.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri said the prosecution evidence being replete with serious contradictions and discrepancies, does not inspire confidence as prosecution witnesses, who have contradicted each other on material aspects of the case, are none other than the police personnel.
Court said the discrepancies could have been ignored if such witnesses were among the common masses or rustic villagers. However, the contradictions, afore-noted, have come to fore from the mouth of trained police officials, who are supposed to know the consequences of the testimonies made in the courts.
“For what have been observed and discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution evidence, in the present case, is not only replete with material contradictions and discrepancies but mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been observed in breach by the Investigating Agency”, the court recorded.
Court said that as per the docket, SDPO and SHO were informed about the occurrence, however, neither SDPO nor SHO have been examined in the case and Investigating Officer has not appeared in the witness box to explain as to whether information received by him was reduced in writing and copy of the same was handed over to his immediate officer within 72 hours in terms of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
“The most vital flaw in the prosecution case is failure on the part of the prosecuting agency to examine the Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, who is stated to have examined the substance recovered in the present case,” court recorded adding with “It goes without saying that FSL report forms the very foundation of a case under NDPS Act and a case under NDPS Act can only survive if prosecution succeeds to establish during the trial that the substance recovered during investigation is indeed a contraband”.
Another vital aspect of the present case court said, is failure on the part of prosecution to prove basic documents, which set the investigating agency into motion. As per the prosecution case the Incharge of patrolling party -ASI dispatched a docket through a constable of Police Station Awantipora for registration of FIR.
The said constable has not been examined during the trial to prove the docket and consequent FIR registered in the present case. Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the author of the docket and to prove FIR, proves fatal to the entire prosecution case.
It was in the year 2008 while on patrolling it was found a person carrying a polythene bag containing ‘charas’ weighing 01 kg and on dispatched a docket the investigation came into vogue, which culminated into final report in terms of Section 173 CrPC against the accused-Abdul Rashid Dar for the aforesaid offences.
On appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the trial court not only found the prosecution evidence discrepant on material aspects but also observed that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been observed in breach.” The trial court also expressed its displeasure about the standard of investigation carried out in the present case and therefore, the respondent came to be acquitted of the charges.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
