This case involves Md. Manirut Jaman, the appellant, who was convicted under the *Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985* (NDPS Act) by a lower court in Assam. He challenged his conviction before the Gauhati High Court on grounds of procedural irregularities and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence.
An FIR was filed on September 28, 2021, at Moirabari Police Station, alleging that the appellant stored large quantities of suspected narcotic drugs. During a search, police recovered 13 bottles of Eskuf Codeine Phosphate Syrup from the appellant's residence. Following this, a case was registered under Sections 21(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The appellant was arrested on charges of possessing narcotic substances. The lower court, relying on the prosecution’s evidence, convicted him under the NDPS Act, leading to his appeal in the Gauhati High Court.
The appellant claimed that the prosecution's evidence had multiple contradictions, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the chain of custody of the seized substances. The appellant also argued that the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, such as the requirement for independent witnesses and proper handling of seized substances, were not followed. The appellant questioned the fairness of the trial, particularly focusing on whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction under the NDPS Act.
The prosecution argued that the lower court had rightly convicted the appellant based on the evidence, including the recovery of narcotic substances. The State contended that minor contradictions in witness statements were not substantial enough to affect the case’s overall merit. The prosecution further submitted that the procedural safeguards were followed, and any deviations did not materially affect the outcome of the case.
The Gauhati High Court closely examined the contradictions in the witness statements and found that these inconsistencies were significant enough to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the narcotics allegedly seized from the appellant. It emphasized that maintaining an unbroken chain of custody is crucial to ensure that the seized substances are not tampered with and that they are the same substances produced in court as evidence. The court also found procedural lapses in the conduct of the search and seizure operations. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, such as the presence of independent witnesses during the search, were not strictly adhered to. The court emphasized that these procedural safeguards are in place to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fairness in the investigation process.
The Gauhati High Court overturned the conviction of Md. Manirut Jaman under the NDPS Act. The Court reiterated that compliance with Section 52A is mandatory, as observed in various Supreme Court rulings. Non-compliance creates serious doubts about the prosecution's case. Given the harsh penalties under the NDPS Act, strict adherence to procedural requirements is crucial.
The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the evidence and procedural failures. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained where there are significant contradictions in evidence and non-compliance with statutory procedures.
Md. Manirut Jaman @ Moni v. The State of Assam Crl.A No. 392/2023