The Supreme Court has ordered acquittal of a person, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fined Rs one lakh for possessing Charas, after giving him benefit of doubt due to the lacunae and gaps in the prosecution.
The order was passed by the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, while setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Noting that the site plan/spot map, which was prepared at the spot where the recovery of the drugs was made, was wrong and incorrect, the Apex Court took into consideration the confession made by the Head Constable (PW-4) during his cross examination.
The Head Constable had accepted that the site plan was wrongly prepared. The top court of the country further noted that the nakabandi and even the place where the appellant had allegedly thrown the rucksack was also stated wrong.
Another Head Constable (PW-5), who was the Investigating Officer, had also accepted in the cross examination that the site plan was incorrect, the Apex Court was apprised.
As per the Supreme Court, the prosecution was not able to show and prove the author of the arrest memo and the personal body search memo. The PW-4 had accepted that he had not put his signatures on the arrest memo or personal body search memo though his name was mentioned as an attesting witness, it added.
The Court further noted that the PW-4 had professed that the arrest memo was prepared by PW-5, however, the PW-5 proffered that he was not the author of the arrest memo and the personal body search memo.
It took note of the fact that the appellant had claimed that he was arrested from the bus stand while he was waiting to board a bus. One unclaimed bag was found under a bench in which charas was found.
The appellant had further contended that he was falsely implicated and there were no public witnesses as per the Police.
Taking in view the lacunae and gaps in the case made by the prosecution, the Supreme Court decided to give benefit of doubt to the appellant, who was sentenced to 10-year imprisonment by the Special Judge of District Kullu and the same was upheld by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Advocate Kiran Dhawan appeared for petitioner Aditya Dhawan, while Respondent Mohan Lal Sharma was represented by AOR Advocate Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocate Shikha Sharma and Advocate Rajbir Singh.
(Case title: Amar Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh)