STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus UDAI LAL

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R 38 
A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
V. 
UOAI LAL 
(Criminal Appeal No.843 Of 2008) 
B 
MAY 8, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 • 
- s. 368 ands. 8 rlw s. 15 - Conviction under, by Special Judge, 
c NDPS cases - Set aside by High Court in appeal - Chai-
lenge to - Held: The High Court failed to analyze the evidence 
in proper perspective, and highlighting minor irregularities/ 
contradictions, it acquitted accused-Respondent on flimsy 
grounds without assigning sound reasons - It failed to con-
D sider all the relevant materials and circumstances ·- Matter 
remitted to High Court for fresh disposal - Code of Criminal 
~ 
Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXIX - s.J74. 
Bags containing poppy husk powder were allegedly 
recovered from a truck. Respondent was driving the said 
E truck. The Special Judge, NDPS cases, convicted him 
under s.8 r/w s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotro-
pie Substances Act, 1985. Respondent filed appeal be-
fore the High Court which allowed the same holding that 
the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to 
F bring home the guilt of Respondent. 
'r 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration is whether the prosecution had established 
the charges leveled against Respondent and the High 
Court erred in acquitting him while exercising power un-
G der s.368 read with Chapter XXIX of CrPC. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
)-
Court for fresh disposal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The onus of proof lies on the prosecution. 
H 
38 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. 
39 
UDAI LAL 
J( 
To prove the fact that as to whether on 19.08.2001 at 3.15 A 
p.m. Station House Officer, PW7, recovered 119 bags con-
taining doda powder from the possession of the accused-
Respondent for which he was not having any permission 
letter, the prosecution recorded the statement of PWs 5, 
6, 7, 11and12. It is true that except PW12, all the witnesses B 
are from the Police Department. Though the prosecution 
" 
has recorded the statement of independent witnesses 
PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, these four independent witnesses have 
been turned hostile. However, the said witnesses have 
admitted to put their signatures at the required place on c 
the documents prepared on the spot by the prosecution. 
Like P.W.1 other witnesses, namely, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 
~-
have also admitted that they put their signatures at the 
proper place on the documents prepared by the police. 
j 
Also that the Special Judge has pointed out that out of D 
"I-
these witnesses even a single witness has not given any 
such statement that the said signatures have been taken 
from them under terror, pressure or without their free con-
sent. The Special Judge has also observed that while the 
said witnesses are educated and have admitted to have 
signed with their free consent, it is proved that all the four E 
witnesses were present on the spot where the prosecu-
tion party has very much carried out the proceedings. 
These material aspects have not been properly consid-
'"?-
ered by the High Court except discarding them on the 
ground that they turned hostile. [Para 7] [44-C-H, 45-A] 
F 
1.2. Among the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5, 6, 
10, 11 and 12 except PW12, others belong to the Police 
Department. However, the High Court has not analyzed 
and adduced any reason for not accepting their evidence G 
except pointing out minor contradictions here and there. 
{ 
[Para 8] [45-8] 
1.3. The High Court failed to take note of the relevant 
aspect, namely, the quantity of recovery articles is quite 
huge (115 bags) which could not be produced in the Court H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 8 S.C.R. 
A but on behalf of the prosecution 5 bags have been pro-
'/. 
duced in the Court. It is also seen that besides this, at the 
time of recording the statement, the Investigating Officer 
produced the samples of articles taken from the seized 
articles in the Court. In such circumstance, considering 
B the huge quantity merely because the prosecution has 
not produced all the 119 bags in the Court, an inference 
cannot be drawn against them. The Special Judge had 
~ 
rightly noted, that at the time of recording the statement 
Investigating Officer had produced the samples of the 
c articles in the Court. This relevant aspect has also not 
been properly dealt with by the High Court. [Para 9] [45-
C,D,E] 
1.4. Though the High Court found fault with the Spe-
ci

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