High Court Criticizes Flawed Investigation in NDPS Acquittal: 'Failure to Produce Independent Witness Created a Dent'"

Punjab and Haryana High Court acquits accused due to lack of independent witnesses and improper handling of evidence in NDPS case.  In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Kuldeep Singh and Roshan Lal, accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, setting aside their conviction and ten-year imprisonment. The court highlighted several investigative lapses, including the absence of independent witnesses and improper handling of evidence.

The case originated from an incident on November 23, 1986, when a police team led by SHO SI Sher Singh received information about a truck loaded with poppy husk. The truck, bearing registration No. PJP-5277, was found abandoned with 50 bags of poppy husk, each weighing 45 kg. The accused were not apprehended on the spot but were later arrested. Roshan Lal was first apprehended in 1987 but declared a proclaimed offender in 1991 and re-arrested in 1994. Kuldeep Singh was arrested in 1997. Both were convicted by the Special Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Lack of Independent Witnesses: The High Court pointed out that the prosecution failed to examine the independent witness, Harbans Singh Lambardar, who joined the police team during the recovery. The reliance solely on official witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. “The failure to associate an independent witness at the time of recovery creates a dent in the case of the prosecution,” the court noted.

Improper Handling of Evidence: The court observed that the samples of poppy husk were retained by the police from November 23 to December 8, 1986, before being sent for chemical examination. This delay was deemed a significant flaw. Additionally, the contraband was reportedly destroyed in a flood, and photographs of the incident were not properly exhibited, leading to doubts about the evidence's integrity.

Questionable Identification Process: The court criticized the lack of a test identification parade for the accused, who were not apprehended at the scene. The prosecution’s reliance on an officer’s prior knowledge of the accused did not satisfy the court regarding their identity and conscious possession of the contraband.

Bias in Investigation: The Investigating Officer, who received the secret information and conducted the search, was also the complainant. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s stance that such involvement raises questions about the investigation's fairness and impartiality.

The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural safeguards in NDPS cases. The court reiterated that independent corroboration is crucial when the accused are not apprehended at the scene. Moreover, the integrity of evidence must be maintained through timely and proper handling.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar remarked, “The failure to produce the independent witness and improper handling of the case property significantly undermine the prosecution’s case. The procedural lapses raise reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.”

The High Court's decision to acquit Kuldeep Singh and Roshan Lal underscores the necessity of rigorous adherence to procedural norms in criminal investigations, particularly under the NDPS Act. This judgment highlights the critical role of independent witnesses and proper evidence handling in ensuring a fair trial. The acquittal serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice and due process.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Kuldeep Singh and Roshan Lal vs. State of Punjab