Prosecution Must Prove the Right Person Was Tried — You Can’t Convict One for Another’s Crime: Supreme Court Acquits Woman in Ganja Case for Mistaken Identity

“You Called Her Seema, Tried Her as Shikha — That’s Not How Criminal Law Works”, - In a compelling verdict reinforcing the principles of identity, due process, and fair trial, the Supreme Court acquitted a woman falsely implicated in a serious narcotics case. The Court held that the prosecution completely failed to prove that the person tried and convicted was the same individual as the person actually arrested with the contraband, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe and unsustainable.

“The prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that the appellant is Seema Choudhari who was arrested on 4th March 2016. The guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The appellant, K. Shikha Barman, was convicted under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly being found in a car in possession of over 38 kg of ganja. However, the original FIR, arrest memo, and seizure records all mentioned a different name — Seema Choudhari, who was shown as 17 years old at the time of arrest.

The appellant contended that she was not Seema Choudhari, but a woman who was wrongfully picked up from the roadside and later tried as if she were the same individual.

What began as a claim of mistaken identity in a bail application soon became a full-blown miscarriage of justice when both the Special NDPS Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld her conviction without proving that she and Seema Choudhari were the same person.

“Trial and Conviction Cannot Rest on a Bail Order — Identity Must Be Proven at Trial”

The prosecution heavily relied on a bail rejection order dated 6th September 2016, where the Special Judge had summarily recorded that the appellant and Seema Choudhari were the same person, based on certain documents and police submissions.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this reliance:

“The order dated 6th September 2016 was passed in a summary inquiry for deciding a bail application. It cannot be treated as a final adjudication.”

There was no oral evidence, no identity parade, and no procedural step during trial to establish the accused’s identity.

“When All the Evidence Mentions ‘Seema’, You Cannot Convict ‘Shikha’ Without Proving They Are the Same”

The Court conducted a meticulous review of the prosecution’s case and found that every document — FIR, seizure memo, arrest record, medical documents, Juvenile Board remand — mentioned only ‘Seema Choudhari’, never K. Shikha Barman.

“In none of the documents produced along with the charge sheet, K. Shikha Barman was mentioned as an accused.”

Notably, even PW-5, the Sub-Inspector, testified that the names of the women found in the car were Seema and Preeti, and did not identify Shikha Barman during the trial.

“PW-5 has not deposed that the appellant who was present in court is the same person as Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on 4th March 2016.”

Further, when the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC, the prosecution did not even put to her the most basic allegation — that she was Seema Choudhari.

“You Can’t Try and Convict a Ghost — Fundamental Flaw in Prosecution’s Case”

The Supreme Court underlined the profound procedural lapse: “The appellant was deprived of an opportunity to deal with the prosecution case… This causes prejudice to her.”

The entire conviction was built on an assumption of identity, not proof. The Court noted with concern that even the signature/thumb impression on panchnamas did not match the appellant.

“Thumb impression on the consent Panchnama is not of Shikha Barman… Signature of Shikha Barman is not present on any document prepared at the scene.”

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence passed by both the Trial Court and the High Court, and ordered that the appellant be released immediately, if still in custody.

“The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of all offences alleged against her. If she is still in prison, she shall be forthwith set at liberty.”

This judgment serves as a critical reminder that procedural safeguards in criminal trials are not empty formalities — a person’s liberty cannot rest on assumptions or clerical shortcuts, especially in prosecutions involving grave charges like those under the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025