LI Network
Published on: December 19, 2023 at 15:04 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a conviction under the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act, citing inconsistencies in the investigation and holding excise officials responsible for the unfortunate state of affairs.
Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu delivered the verdict in response to a criminal appeal challenging the conviction under section 20 (ii)(B) r/w section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, as pronounced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
The defense argued that the narrative presented by the excise police in the chargesheet was dubious and false. They contended that although the prosecution intended to demonstrate that two mediators randomly selected at the scene were impartial, the cross-examination revealed that one mediator was the excise jeep driver, who later turned hostile, and the other was not examined.
Justice Babu noted that while a witness turning hostile usually wouldn’t undermine the prosecution’s case, in this instance, it cast suspicion on the entire prosecution narrative.
The Court emphasized that the inclusion of the jeep driver as a mediator, contrary to the initial claim that the mediators were passengers, raised doubts about the sincerity of the prosecution’s case.
The bench further observed that the prosecution did not follow standard practice by not examining a second witness when the first turned hostile. It was revealed that the second witness, who had recently testified in another case, could have been easily secured by the prosecution.
Justice Babu concluded that both witnesses seemed to be ‘stock witnesses’—individuals readily available for police use. The court expressed doubt about the authenticity of the mahazarnama (panchnama) based on these revelations.
In the background of the case, the prosecution asserted that excise police, during routine checks in 2007, found two individuals with ganja at a bus stop.
The accused confessed when questioned, and the police, following procedures, selected mediators from the crowd. However, during the trial, one mediator deposed that he signed the mahazarnama only in the excise office, and the other remained unexamined.
The court questioned the bona fides of the incident, highlighting that the presence of a gazetted officer, as claimed by the prosecution, was unnecessary for the circumstances described in the charge sheet.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction order of the lower court, acquitting the accused. The judgment underscored that the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain a conviction and warranted giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
