In Yogendra Sah vs.The State Of Biha (2026), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court delivered a 17-page long judgement dated April 20, 2026 wherein, he concluded: "The prosecution case thus rests predominantly on the testimony of official witnesses without any credible independent corroboration, and the non-production of the alleged seized contraband as a material exhibit further creates a serious lacuna in the chain of evidence. In such circumstances, the mere availability of the F.S.L. Report cannot be treated as conclusive proof either of the recovery or of the nature of the substance allegedly seized, and in the absence of reliable evidence establishing the factum of recovery, its evidentiary value stands considerably diminished, thereby creating a serious doubt in the prosecution case, as a result of which this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. 21. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. 22. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 12-09-2013 and order of sentence dated 16-09-2013 passed by the learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi in GR No. 3297 of 2009 / TR No. 07 of 2013, arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009 is hereby set aside."
The judgement reads:"...the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. The fine deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him."
The appeal was filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction dated September 12, 2013 and order of sentence dated September 16, 2013 passed by the 1st. Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi in GR No. 3297 of 2009 / TR No. 07 of 2013, arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 (four) years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/.
Justice Singh relied upon para nos. 6 and 7 of Supreme Court's judgment in Gorakh Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in (2018) 2 SCC 305, to observe that "the non-production of the seized material is therefore considered fatal to the prosecution case." He added:"17. It is well settled law that although the NDPS Act envisages a reverse burden of proof, it is well settled that the prosecution must, in the first instance, establish the foundational facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence in strict compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions governing search, seizure and recovery. It is only upon such initial burden being duly discharged that the onus shifts upon the accused. Mere registration of a case under the Act does not ipso facto operate to shift the burden at the threshold. Having regard to the stringent nature of the statute, the evidence on record warrants strict scrutiny, and where the prosecution fails to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt must enure to the accused/appellant."
Justice Singh observed:"18. It appears that, all the prosecution witnesses examined in the present case are official witnesses belonging to the S.S.B., and there is a complete absence of reliable independent evidence with regard to the alleged recovery. It would, therefore, be unsafe to base a conviction solely on their testimony, especially in the absence of corroboration. Significantly, the alleged contraband (ganja) was neither produced before the Trial Court nor marked as a material exhibit, and no plausible explanation has been furnished for such non-production. Consequently, there is no cogent material on record to establish a nexus between the substance allegedly seized and the samples sent for forensic examination. In such circumstances, question arises whether the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment