Conviction Not Sustainable if Arrest Memo , Site Plan Not Proved – NDPS -Supreme Court

A person who was condemned to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh was recently cleared by the Supreme Court of the charge of possessing charas. The appellant's conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was overturned by a bench made up of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari, who gave him the benefit of the doubt because of the prosecution's flaws and gaps.

The punishment was imposed on the appellant by Special Judge District Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld it.

The Supreme Court stated that the site plan and spot map that were created at the location where the drugs were recovered were erroneous and wrong.

The judge noted that Head Constable (PW-4) had acknowledged during cross-examination that the site plan had been incorrectly created. It was also incorrectly stated where the appellant is said to have thrown the backpack, as well as the nakabandi. The bench had also taken note of the fact that the Investigating Officer, another Head Constable (PW-5), had acknowledged the error of the site plan during cross-examination.

The bench noted that the prosecution had also failed to identify and identify the author of the memos related to the arrest and the intimate body search. PW-4 acknowledged that although his name being listed as an attesting witness, he did not sign the memos relating to the arrest or the individual body search. The bench also took note of the PW-4's claim that PW-5 wrote the arrest memo, notwithstanding PW-5's claim that he did not write either the arrest document or the memo about the individual body search.

The bench also took note of the appellant's claim that he was detained while waiting to board a bus at the bus stop. Under a bench, one unclaimed bag of charas was discovered. The appellant claimed that the police had no evidence against him and that he had been wrongly accused.

"When considered holistically, the aforementioned weaknesses and gaps in the prosecution's case lead us to believe that the appellant's conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act cannot stand. Give the appellant the benefit of the doubt "The bench took notice.

Amar Chand

vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh