SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 30-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2021)
AUGUST 30, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 54 Presumption u/s.54 – Appellant concurrently
convicted u/s.20(b)(ii)(C) and sentenced, relying on the testimony
of PW-7-DSP (who acted both as the informant and the IO) – On
appeal, held: I.O. examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything
only in the presence of independent witnesses – But those
independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and
participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their
signatures found a place in the documents – Thus, a serious doubt
is cast on the very search and seizure allegedly made by PW-7 – It is
true that s.54 raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the
accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the
contraband – But to raise the presumption u/s.54 it must first be
established that a recovery was made from the accused – The moment
a doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, the search and
seizure, the appellant, will also be entitled to the same benefit as
given by the Special Court to the co-accused – Appellant also entitled
to the benefit of doubt – Judgments of the Special Court and the
High Court set aside.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
Evidence – Police witnesses, independent witnesses – Held: It is
not always necessary that the evidence of the police witnesses have
to be corroborated by independent witnesses – Also, independent
witnesses turning hostile need not necessarily result in the acquittal
of the accused, when the mandatory procedure is followed and the
other police witnesses speak in one voice – But if the Court has to
completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony of
police witnesses by independent witnesses and turn a Nelson’s eye
to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the
prosecution should be very convincing and the testimony of the
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 166
166
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
official witnesses notably trustworthy – If independent witnesses
come up with a story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution
theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case of the
prosecution should collapse – Once the prosecution comes up with
a story that the search and seizure was conducted in the presence
of independent witnesses and they also choose to examine them
before Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of the
independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and
whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Some propositions of law on which there can be
no controversy. They are (i) that as per the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Mukesh Singh, the fact that
the informant  also happened to be the investigator, may not by
itself vitiate the investigation as unfair or biased; (ii) that it is not
always necessary that the evidence of the police witnesses have
to be corroborated by independent witnesses, as held in
Dharampal Singh and Mukesh Singh; (iii) that the independent
witnesses turning hostile need not necessarily result in the
acquittal of the accused, when the mandatory procedure is
followed and the other police witnesses speak in one voice as
held in Rizwan Khan; and (iv) that once it is established that the
contraband was recovered from the accused’s possession, a
presumption arises under Section 54. But if the Court has (i) to
completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony
of police witnesses by independent witnesses; and (ii) to turn a
Nelson’s eye to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then
the story of the prosecution should be very convincing and the
testimony of the official witnesses notably trustworthy. If
independent witnesses come up with a story which creates a
gaping hole in the prosecution theory, about the very search and
seizure, then the case of the prosecution should collapse like a
pack of cards. It is no doubt true that corroboration by
independent witnesses is not always necessary. But once the
prosecution comes up with a story that the search and seizure
was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and they
also choose to examine them before Court, then the Court has
to see whether the version of the i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.