Where State Accepts Acquittal of One, Conviction of Another on Same Evidence Is Unsustainable: Supreme Court Acquits Woman Under NDPS Act on Parity Grounds

"When the prosecution fails to establish conscious possession in a joint trial, and the State does not challenge the acquittal of one, parity demands acquittal of the other," observed the Supreme Court while acquitting the appellant. In a significant ruling under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a woman (Vaddi Ratnam) who had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for alleged possession of 5.5 kg of opium. The Court ruled that since her co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence in a separate appeal—unchallenged by the State—principles of parity warranted the appellant’s acquittal as well.

"No Conviction Where Conscious Possession Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt" – Supreme Court Stresses Strict Standards in NDPS Prosecutions

The case originated from an incident dated 01 January 2002, where the State Task Force of Andhra Pradesh intercepted two women, including the appellant and her co-accused (Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi), near Kathipudi village. A yellow handbag containing six packets of opium—five of one kilogram each, and one of 0.5 kilograms—was seized from them.

The Trial Court at East Godavari convicted both under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to 10 years’ RI along with a fine of ₹1,00,000 each. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court for the appellant in 2013. However, the co-accused was later acquitted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2014 on the very same evidence. The prosecution did not appeal that acquittal.

The foundation of the prosecution's case was the alleged handing over of the yellow handbag containing opium by the co-accused to the appellant upon seeing the police. However, during trial, multiple key witnesses—especially the mediator witness (PW1) and the Excise Inspector (PW5)—either turned hostile or gave vague and inconsistent accounts about who was actually in possession of the contraband.

Despite this, the Special Court convicted both women, relying on the chemical examiner’s confirmation that the substance was opium and assuming joint possession. The High Court, while confirming the conviction of the present appellant, accepted this reasoning.

But in a separate appeal by co-accused Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi, the same High Court held in 2014 that the prosecution had "miserably failed to prove who actually carried the said bag and who actually transferred it." It was further observed that even the Excise Inspector (PW5) could not clearly identify the individual who possessed the bag. The High Court concluded that it was "unsafe to convict a person for such a serious offence based on weak and vague evidence."

Parity in Criminal Jurisprudence

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, who was convicted under the same section and on the same evidence as the acquitted co-accused, should also be entitled to acquittal on the principle of parity.

The Court cited the joint nature of the trial, common evidence against both accused, and the State’s failure to challenge the co-accused’s acquittal.

“We think it is just and necessary to apply the principle of parity because the complaint as against both the accused is one and same and a joint trial was conducted… and on the basis of appreciation of the said evidence, the High Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted accused no.1,” the Court stated.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when the minimum sentence under the NDPS Act is as severe as 10 years, there must be strict compliance with evidentiary standards. It reaffirmed that “weak and uncertain evidence cannot form the basis of conviction in NDPS cases.”

The Court noted: "The prosecution is not clear as to the person who was in conscious possession of the contraband... even PW5’s evidence is not specific. The Excise Officials do not clearly establish that the appellant was in conscious possession of the said bag."

Since the evidence was equally applicable to both accused, and the High Court had already rejected its sufficiency in the co-accused’s case, the Supreme Court held that it would be “unjust to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the same evidentiary material.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of conviction passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1870/2005 and the Trial Court’s order in NDPS S.C. No.14 of 2002 were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Court also directed that her bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.

This judgment underscores the centrality of the “conscious possession” requirement under the NDPS Act and reaffirms the principle that convictions cannot rest on equivocal or insufficient evidence, especially in prosecutions carrying harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

Further, it solidifies the doctrine of parity in criminal trials, warning against inconsistent outcomes for co-accused when the evidence is common and unchallenged by the prosecution in either case.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2025