LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DAUL@ DAULAT GIRI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 939 STATE OF RAJASTHAN A v DAUL@ DAULAT GIRi Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2003 APRIL 28, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ,., Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 8 and 18 - Respondent allegedly found in possession of contraband opium - Contraband samples collected for c chemical analysis - PW1, SHO deposited the samples with PW8, the Malkahna In-charge, who handed over the same to PW5 - PW5 reached the Superintendent of Police office and gave the samples to 'J' at 10:00 a.m. and received back the samples from 'J' at 5:00 p.m the very same day and submitted D ... the same with FSL - Conviction of respondent by trial court - Set aside by High Court on the premise that non-examination of 'J' rendered the prosecution version unacceptable - Justification of - Held: On facts, not justified - Role of 'J' was very limited; that is receiving sample at 10:00 a. m. and handing E samples back at 5:00 p.m. on the very same day - Non- examination of 'J' did not affect the veracity of the prosecution version in any manner- No material to support the conclusion of High Court that there was possibility of tampering with the samples - FSL report clearly stated that the seals were intact F and matched with the specimen seals - Judgment of trial court restored. According to the prosecution, pursuant to receipt of secret information by PW1, SHO, the accused-respondent was encircled and then searched by the police party, on G which he was found to be carrying about 6 kgs of opium. ~ .. The trial court convicted the respondent under ss.8 and .. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Respondent filed appeal before the High Court 939 H 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A which set aside the conviction on the premise that samples of the contraband opium, which were collected for purposes of chemical analysis, were in custody of one 'J' and non-examination of the said 'J' rendered the prosecution version unacceptable. B Challenging the acquittal of the respondent, the State contended before this Court that the non-examination of 'J' was not fatal to the credibility of the prosecution version and that the entire scenario starting from seizure of the samples till their receipt at the Forensic Science c Laboratory(FSL) and the report thereafter clearly proved that the samples were not only sealed but were also kept i: in proper and safe custody and hence there was no question or possibility of any tampering as concluded by the High Court. D Allowing the appeal, the Court ~ HELD: The factual scenario goes to show that PW1 seized the articles and deposited the seized articles and samples with PWS who was the Malkahna In-charge. PWS E handed the material to PW5 for depositing the sample in FSL. PW 5 reached the Superintendent of Police office and gave the samples to 'J' at 10:00 a.m. and received back the samples from 'J' at 5:00 p.m the very same day and also obtained forwarding letter. PW5 submitted the F samples in FSL and obtained acknowledgement receipt. The role of 'J' is very limited; that is receiving sample at 10:00 a.m. and handing samples back at 5:00 p.m. It is not understandable as to how the non-examination of 'J' in any way affected the veracity of the prosecution G version. The High Court came to an abrupt and unsustainable conclusion that because 'J' was not examined "possibility of the sample having been ~ . tampered with could not be ruled out." The conclusion is ,.... unsustainable in view of the FSL report which clearly H stated that the seals were intact and matched with the .. STATE OF RAJASTHAN V DAUL @ DAULAT GIRi 941 specimen seals. There is no material to support the A conclusion of the High Court that there was possibility of tampering with the samples. Looked at from any angle, the judgment of the ·High Court is unsustainable and is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Paras 7, 9, 10] [944-B-F; 945-A-B] B Hardip Singh vs. State of Punjab 2008 (8) SCC 557 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2008 (8) sec 557 referred to Para 8 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003 c From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 1997 Manish Singhvi, Milind Kumar, for the Appellant. Indra Makwana, for the Responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.