STATE OF HARYANA versus ASHA DEVI AND ANR.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 12-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 348 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
ASHA DEVI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1953 of 2009) 
MAY 12, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 
C - s. 20 - Appeal against acquittal - On facts, search and 
seizure of 11 kgs of intoxicated drug-ganja from the wife and 
her husband - Wife apprehended, however, her husband 
managed to escape - Trial court finding the prosecution 
D evidence inconsistent and untrustworthy and that the 
prosecution failed to prove its charges beyond reasonable 
doubts, acquitted them of the charges - High Court upheld 
the said order - On appeal, held: Assessment of evidence 
and consideration of the matter by both the courts as regards 
E no independent witness; husband could not have fled in 
presence of five police officers; and the link evidence of the 
possession of seal 'RP' transferring from AS/ to 10 is not 
proved, is erroneous and cannot be termed as a possible 
view - Prosecution sufficiently proved its case to establish 
F the guilt of the accused - Thus, the wife and her husband 
convicted u/s. 20 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 
five years. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court and the trial court relied 
on three points to decide the matter against the State-
no independent witness; husband could not have fled 
in presence of five police officers; and the link evidence 
H of the possession of seal "RP" transferring from ASI to 
348 
.. 'STATE OF HARYANA v. ASHA DEVI AND ANR. 
349 
1.0. is not proved. The assessment of evidence and A 
consideration of the matter as regards these points by 
both the courts is erroneous and cannot be termed as a 
possible view. [Para 7) [355-8-D] 
1.2 Both the DSP as well as 1.0. have deposed B 
that public persons were available when the contraband 
was seized; however, none of the public person acceded 
to their request of joining the investigation as an 
independent witness. The courts below found it 
unbelievable but no reason for same was rendered. The C 
consistent statement of both the DSP as well as 1.0. 
rather enhances the veracity of the circumstances as 
put forth by them. With respect to the finding of the 
courts below that husband could not have fled away after 
scaling the wall and the police constables would have D 
failed to catch hold of him; the courts below proceeded 
on assumption and conjecture. There is nothing in the 
evidence which could show that husband could not have 
run away. There are positive statements by several 
prosecution witnesses that he ran away on seeing the E 
police party and these statements have withstood the 
test of cross examination as well. So, the High Court 
and the trial court were not correct in arriving at the 
said finding. [Para 8) (355-E-H; 356-A] 
F 
1.3 The courts below found the prosecution case 
as doubtful inasmuch as that when the seal "RP" was in 
possession of ASI, how could it have been with 1.0. the 
next day. The more important evidence was with respect 
to the sample which was sealed with "RP". There is clear G 
evidence that initially the samples were taken and sealed 
with "RP" and "MS" atthe place of seizure and thereafter, 
on same day, SHO also sealed the said samples with 
"SS". There is uncontroverted evidence to the fact that H 
the samples were produced before the Judicial 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. . 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate, where seal of one sample was broken and 
resealed with "RP". Thereafter, the sample was 
deposited in Judicial Malkhana from where it was sent 
to the FSL. The FSL report notes that the seal was intact 
and the sample was un-tampered. All the persons who 
B possessed the contraband sample have been brought 
on record to support that no tampering was done with 
the samples. The defence failed to bring out anything in 
the cross-examination of the witnesses with respect to 
tampering of the samples. Thus, it is found that the 
C samples were properly dealt with throughout and the 
same was found to be Ganja. With respect to the seal 
that was handed over to ASI, the defence failed to cross-
examine the 1.0. as to how did he got possession of 
0 
seal back from ASI. Under these circumstances, the 
prosecution was not duty bound to explain the 
movement of the seal from one person to another in the 
given circumstances. Since, the movement of sample 
has been proved and found to be regular, the prosecution 
E has sufficiently proved

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