State Of H.P. vs Labh Singh & Ors.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.03.2015 passed by Special Judge (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 271/2013 (S 59/2009), titled as State of H.P. Vs. Labh Singh and others, whereby respondents herein have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

In the Trial Court, challan was presented against six accused persons, namely, Labh Singh, Gulab Singh, Sohan Lal, Vipin Kumar, Deepak Sharma, and Dinesh Sharma. Out of them, two accused persons, namely, Gulab Singh and Sohan Lal had expired during pendency of the trial. Remaining accused (respondents herein) were acquitted by the Trial Court, hence present appeal has been preferred against acquitted accused, being respondents No. 1 to 4 herein.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.01.2009, police party headed by ASI Amar Nath (PW-13), comprising HC Dina Nath (given up), HC Dhani Ram (PW-5), Constable Ramesh Kumar (not cited in the list of witnesses), Constable Inderdev (PW-6), Constable Ravi Kumar (not cited), Constable Narender Kumar (not cited), Constable Goverdhan Singh (not cited), and Driver Constable Himmat Ram (not cited), left Police Station at about 5:45 PM in Government vehicle No. HP-33B-1378 for patrolling and nakabandi towards Larji Dam and Shilli-Larji, etc., after recording Daily Diary Report No. 28 dated 04.01.2009 (Ex. PW-1/A) at the Police Station Aut, District Kullu, H.P.

It is further case of the prosecution that at about 6:30 PM, police party was present at Shilli-Larji for nakabandi and traffic checking. A Qualis vehicle bearing registration No. HR-99-AFT-3650 came from Larji side, which was stopped by the driver upon a signal given by PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, wherein, including the driver, four persons were travelling. The person, sitting on the front seat along with driver, was holding a polythene bag in his lap, who became perplexed on seeing the police party and tried to conceal the bag. On arising suspicion, after inquiring about the name and address of the said person, in presence of HC Dhani Ram (PW-5) and HC Dina Nath (given up), he disclosed his name as Labh Singh along with his address. The purple-colored polythene bag held by him in his lap with the word "RICHER", printed thereon, was checked, and out of that, three packets wrapped with brown coloured cello tape were found. On opening the wrappers, cannabis (charas) in stick, ball, and rectangular shapes was found wrapped in transparent polythene covers.

The driver disclosed his name as Gulab Singh (expired), whereas the persons sitting on the rear seat disclosed their names as Vipin Kumar and Sohan Lal (expired), respectively, along with their addresses.

On weighing, the recovered charas was found to be 2 Kilograms. Out of recovered contraband of three packets, two samples of 25 grams each were drawn for chemical analysis. Samples of contraband were separately sealed with the seal ‘M’. The remaining bulk contraband was repacked into polybags and sealed in cloth parcels with four impressions of seal 'M'. Relevant columns of NCB forms were filled in triplicate and after taking sample seal on a piece of cloth, seal was handed over to PW-5 HC Dhani Ram.

The recovered substance alongwith vehicle, its key, documents and driving license, was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B, which was signed by accused Labh Singh, Sohan Singh, Vipin Kumar, and Gulab Singh, as well as marginal witnesses PW-5 HC Dhani Ram and HC Dina Nath (not examined).

PW-13 ASI Amar Nath prepared the ruqqa (Ex. PW-13/J) and sent it through PW-6 Constable Inderdev to Police Station for registration of FIR, on the basis of which, FIR No. 8/2009 (Ext. PW4/A) was registered at 9:30 PM and PW-6 Constable Inderdev returned to the spot with case file and ruqqa at about 10:00 PM. After registration of the FIR, the requisite endorsement regarding recording of the FIR was made on the ruqqa in red circle ‘A’.

On finding sufficient material on record to arrest respondents No. 1 to 4, they were arrested by PW-13 ASI Amar Nath after giving information of their arrest to persons of their choice. According to memos/notices of arrest dated 04.01.2009, Labh Singh was arrested at 10:00 PM, Gulab Singh was arrested at 10:15 PM, Vipin Kumar was arrested at 10:30 PM, and Sohan Lal was arrested at 10:45 PM. In this regard, arrest memos Ex. PW-5/G to Ex. PW-5/K were prepared. Memos of jama talashi (personal search) Ex. PW-5/C to Ex. PW-5/F were also prepared.

Police party returned to Police Station at 11:15 PM along with vehicle and accused persons. In this regard, DD Report No. 42 dated 04.01.2009 was recorded in daily diary register by ASI Amar Nath, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/B. Recovered contraband was produced before SHO/SI Chhotu Ram (PW-4), who resealed the case property with seal impression 'Y', took fesimale of seal on NCB-I forms, filled relevant columns thereof and also took an impression of seal on a separate piece of cloth and handed over the file to ASI Amar Nath. Accused, Labh Singh, Gulab Singh, Vipin, and Sohan Lal, were taken into custody and lodged in the lock-up (havalat).

Resealed contraband along with documents was deposited with MHC Prakash Chand (PW-8) and in this regard, DD Report No. 43 was recorded by PW-4 SI Chhotu Ram on 04.01.2009, a copy whereof is Ex. PW-1/C.

A special report was prepared and sent to the Additional SP, Mandi, on 05.01.2009 by ASI Amar Nath through PW-2 Constable Sudeep Kumar, who delivered it to the Additional SP at his residence on 05.01.2009 at 11:30 AM. Additional SP handed over the special report to PW-10 HC Lakshman Dass on 06.01.2009 at 10:40 AM with endorsement Ex. PX thereon, which was entered in the register by PW-10 HC Lakshman Dass, who also identified the signature of Additional SP on special report in the red circle Ex. PY with endorsement by PW-10 Lakshman Dass Ex. PX. A copy of extract of register regarding the entry of special report is Ex. PW-10/B.

On 06.01.2009, sample of contraband along with relevant documents, i.e. copy of FIR, NCB forms, seizure memo were sent through PW-7 Constable Ashok Kumar vide RC No. 110/08-09 (Ex. PW-8/B) for chemical analysis to State FSL, Junga, by MHC Prakash Chand (PW-8). The samples were deposited by PW-7 Constable Ashok Kumar at State FSL on 07.01.2009, and the receipt thereof was handed over to PW-8 MHC Prakash Chand.

It is further case of the prosecution that later on, upon receiving instructions from Higher Authorities, entire remaining bulk of contraband (1 kg 950 grams) was sent to State FSL, Junga, vide RC No. 61/2009 for chemical analysis by MHC Satya Prakash through PW-9 Constable Ajeet Singh on 29.07.2009, which was deposited with State FSL on the same day and receipt thereof was handed over by PW-9 Ajeet Singh to MHC in the Police Station. The extract of the malkhana register regarding the deposit and dispatch of contraband for chemical analysis is Ex. PW-8/A.

PW-8 ASI Prakash Chand conducted partial investigation under the directions of the SHO by recording the statements of witnesses, namely, Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-7), Constable Sudeep (PW-2), and HC Lakshman (PW-10), and handed over the file to the SHO. PW-12 Inspector Shreshta Thakur, who upon receiving the FSL reports Ex. PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B, completed the investigation and presented the challan before the Court.

PW-1 Constable Virender Kumar proved on record DD reports Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-1/B, and Ex. PW-1/C.

It is further case of the prosecution that during police custody, accused persons arrested on 04.01.2009 disclosed that they had purchased 2 Kilograms of charas for a consideration of Rs. 33,000/- in Village Talara from two persons, namely Deepak and Dinesh (respondents No. 3 and 4 herein), near their house. On 07.01.2009, the aforesaid accused persons gave identification of house of Nathu Ram, father of respondent Dinesh at village Talara, and during PW this process, PW-13 ASI Amar Nath associated PW-3 Constable Subhash Chand, the Pradhan Dola Singh (not examined) of the said village and the house of accused was searched, but nothing was recovered from the house and in this regard, search memo Ex. PW-3/A was prepared, which was witnessed by PW-3 Constable Subhash Chand and Dola Singh (not examined).

According to prosecution, Dinesh Kumar and his brother-in-law Deepak, who were the alleged suppliers of the charas, absconded and they applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court in September 2009, which was dismissed and thereafter, they filed application for bail before Sessions Court, Mandi, but they were remanded to judicial custody on 28.09.2009 and on next day i.e. 29.09.2009, they were formally arrested in this case and in the aforesaid facts, challan was presented against six accused, out of them Sohan Singh and Gulab Singh had expired during trial.

To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, whereas after recording statement of respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), respondents have not lead any evidence in defence.

The Trial Court, after assessing and appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted all the respondents.

Learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove recovery of 2 kilograms of charas from respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as the deceased respondents and its supply by respondents No. 3 and 4 by placing on record sufficient evidence and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and despite having evidence proving the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, respondents have been acquitted and thus Trial Court has committed a mistake and, therefore, interference of this Court in this appeal is warranted to convict and sentence the respondents.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that for glaring discrepancies, material contradictions, and non-compliance of mandatory provisions, prosecution case does not withstand legal scrutiny, so as to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence and, therefore, Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents.

After considering the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondents as well as going through the record, we find that there is no scope of interference in the appeal for discussion hereinafter.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been implicated in the case as suppliers of Charas alleged to be recovered from other respondents No. 1 and 2 and deceased Gulab Singh and Sohan Singh. To implicate respondents No. 3 and 4, it is claimed that other respondents had made disclosure statement. Admittedly, no such disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was proved on record.

PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, in his cross-examination, though had stated that disclosure statement was given by accused Labh Singh before the Magistrate, however, he has admitted in the Court that he had not seen any such statement in the Court file. Then he clarified with self-statement that remand was obtained from the Magistrate. Though he has denied that no such disclosure statement was recorded, however, it is matter of record that there is no disclosure statement on record made by either Labh Singh or any other remaining respondents arrested on 04.01.2009.

It is further case of the prosecution that there were more than 10 calls between Deepak, Dinesh, and Labh Singh. According to PW-13 Amar Nath, Labh Singh, during investigation, had disclosed that charas was purchased by him from Deepak and Dinesh for a consideration of ₹33,000/-, therefore, call details of these three persons were obtained.

According to prosecution, mobile number 98164-10609 belonged to Deepak Kumar, mobile 98167-76571 belonged to Dinesh Kumar and 97299-11095 belonged to Labh Singh, and therefore, call details of these mobile phones were taken and from the call details, it transpired that there were more than 10 calls between them and in furtherance to the aforesaid disclosure, Labh Singh had identified the house of Nathu, father of Dinesh, and the said process was documented in memo of identification Ex. PW-13/C and thereafter at the instance of Deepak and Dinesh, while in custody, memo of identification Ex. PW-13/D was prepared.

Admittedly, before the search and identification of the house of Nathu Ram, no statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded, and despite having so called prior information, no compliance under Section 42 of NDPS Act was ensured. However, during the search of the said house, nothing was recovered. Therefore, these documents are not sufficient to connect Deepak and Dinesh with the alleged commission of offence of supply of the contraband.

It is also an admitted fact, as accepted and stated by PW-13 ASI Amar Nath in his deposition before the Court during cross-examination, that he did not take any document in possession regarding the ownership of alleged house, and that mobile SIM numbers 98164-10609, alleged to be of Deepak, and 98167-76571, alleged to be of Dinesh, were belonging to some other persons. He has further stated that he did not verify the record of these two SIMs regarding ownership, and as per his investigation, both the SIMs referred supra were not belonging to Dinesh and Deepak. He has further stated that he did not visit the house of Deepak. He has further stated that he did not collect any record qua ownership of Labh Singh with respect to SIM No. 97299-11095.

The evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove involvement of Deepak and Dinesh in commission of offence has lost its relevance in view of deposition and admission by PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, Investigating Officer. There is no reliable, cogent, and confidence-inspiring evidence on record to hold Deepak and Dinesh guilty of commission of offence as alleged.

Regarding accused persons who were travelling in the vehicle from whom charas has been alleged to have been recovered, it is apt to notice that, as per case of prosecution and as stated in ruqqa Ex. PW-13/J, FIR Ex. PW-4/A, and examination-in-chief of PW-5 HC Dhani Ram and PW-6 Constable Inderdev, who are spot witnesses, the police party went in an official vehicle for traffic checking and laying naka, but, admittedly, they have not checked any vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle in reference to present case, or thereafter.

PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, Investigating Officer, has omitted the names of Ravi Kumar and Himmat in his examination-in-chief as members of the police party. Similarly, PW-5 HC Dhani Ram has omitted name of Himmat as a member of the police party.

PW-13 ASI Amar Nath has stated that on his signal, vehicle was stopped and out of the four persons sitting in the car including driver, the person sitting beside the driver got frightened who was carrying one bag in his lap and his name was inquired and bag was checked as his conduct created suspicion. However, in cross-examination, this witness (PW-13 ASI Amar Nath) has stated that he had called the official present on duty at Larji Dam to associate in the search and seizure process, who refused to join as a witness. He has further stated that he did not take action against the aforesaid official on his refusal. He has further stated that he did not remember who was sent by him to call the said official.

PW-5 HC Dhani Ram has stated that he did not remember whether the Investigating Officer had tried to associate any independent witnesses. PW-6 HC Inder Dev has also stated that he did not remember whether the Investigating Officer had sent anybody to call independent witnesses.

The time of alleged recovery is between 6:00 PM and 7:30 PM in the month of January. Though, it is a time nearer to sunset or slightly thereafter, but it is not a case of intercepting the vehicle in pitch dark night or during midnight, and therefore, on arising suspicion of some illegal material or contraband in the bag being carried by the person sitting beside the driver, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to at least try to associate independent witnesses. The statements of PW-13 and other witnesses clearly depict that immediately after suspicion arose, the Investigating Officer who was required to join independent witnesses allegedly checked the bag. Therefore, provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) (103 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) have not been taken into consideration, which are not a mere formality, but are necessary to safeguard personal rights in a welfare State. Therefore, non-compliance with the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. in normal circumstances, particularly in present case, should not be made a tool to hamper grant of benefits to the accused.

In the NCB form Ex. PW-4/B, in column of date, time, and place of seizure, the time has been mentioned as 7:30 PM. The vehicle was intercepted at about 6:15 PM; therefore, there was sufficient time to associate witnesses and to prepare ruqqa in a reasonable time. In ruqqa Ex. PW-13/J, also time of preparation has been mentioned as 9:00 PM, with mention of distance from the Police Station as 3½ Kilometers. PW-6 Inder Dev reached Police Station at 9:30 PM, and thereafter, FIR was registered at 9:30 P.M., and then he came back to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, PW-13 ASI Amar Nath has stated that entire proceedings were completed between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM, and thereafter, he prepared spot map and filled NCB Forms in triplicate. According to PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, he asked for showing documents at 8:30 PM, and thereafter, he issued arrest memos with respect to all four accused, namely Vipin, Labh Singh, Gulab Singh, and Sohan Lal, at 8:30 PM, and proceedings were completed by sitting on the parapet.

In the aforesaid facts, it is a mystery that why the Investigating Officer was staying on the spot when everything was completed by 8:00 PM, and not only this, when it is the prosecution's case that the police party left the spot at 11:15 PM and reached the Police Station at 11:40 PM along with the accused persons, then it is not clear, what Police Party was doing till 11:15 P.M. on the spot.

According to statement of PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, entire proceedings were completed by 8:00 PM, and even if his plea is considered that he asked for documents of the vehicle at about 8:30 PM, even thereafter, what was the occasion for the Investigating Officer to stay on the spot till 11:15 PM, is not clear, especially when the Police Station was only 3½ Kilometers away from the spot.

According to PW-5 Dhani Ram the proceedings were conducted outside the vehicle. According to PW-6 Inder Dev, search proceedings were carried out in his presence, and at that time, the accused were present inside the vehicle.

According to PW-5 Dhani Ram, respondents Labh Singh, Vipin Kumar, Sohan Lal, and Gulab Singh were arrested and their jama talashi was conducted on the spot. PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, the Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that after arrest of accused, they were produced in Police Station along with case property. In cross-examination, he stated that he had conducted jama talashi of accused persons in Police Station, with further statement that he first conducted jama talashi of accused persons in Police Station and then handed over the case property to SHO, but he did not prepare the memo of jama talashi of accused. Again, he has stated that he did not prepare memo of jama talashi of accused conducted by him in the Police Station.

The arrest memo Ex. PW-5/G indicates that Labh Singh was arrested at 10:00 PM, whereas as per arrest memos Ex. PW-5/H, Ex. PW-5/J, and Ex. PW-5/K, Gulab Singh, Vipin Kumar, and Sohan Lal were arrested at 10:15 PM, 10:30 PM, and 10:45 PM, respectively by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, memos of jama talashi Ex. PW-5/C, Ex. PW-5/D, Ex. PW-5/E, and Ex. PW-5/F were also prepared.

It is case of the prosecution that PW-6 Head Constable Inderdev returned to the spot at 10:00 PM. The first arrest was at 10:00 PM and remaining arrest were thereafter. At that time, the Investigating Officer had the FIR number with him. However, on all these documents I.e. Ex. PW-5/C to Ex. PW-5/K, on top FIR number column was kept blank. Entire documents have been prepared with blue ink pen, whereas the FIR number has been written with red ink in the space kept blank at the time of preparation of these documents.

In the arrest memo, FIR number was kept blank, whereas the arrests were made after arrival of case file on the spot after registration of FIR. The same is the case with the memos related to jama talashi.

According to PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, jama talashi was taken immediately after arrest of accused in the Police Station, meaning thereby that the arrest was made at the Police Station. But it is also deposition of PW-13, Investigating Officer ASI Amar Nath, that police party left the spot at 11:15 PM., meaning thereby that between 10:00 PM and 11:00 PM, the police party was on the spot. It is irreconcilable that the police party was on the spot and the arrest of respondents was made between 10:00 PM and 10:45 PM, but according to PW-13, it was done in the Police Station, whereas as per documents placed and relied upon by the State, the police party was on the spot.

It is also relevant to record that Daily Diary Report No. 42 Ex. PW-1/B was recorded at the time of return of Police Party at 11:15 P.M. It has been stated by PW-13 ASI Amar Nath that accused Labh Singh, Gulab Singh, Vipin Kumar, and Sohan Lal were produced before the SHO alongwith case file.

In DDR Report No. 43, recorded by ASI Chhota Ram at 11:40 PM, it has been stated that after resealing the contraband, accused Labh Singh, Gulab Singh, Vipin Kumar, and Sohan Lal were arrested, jama talashi was conducted, and they were detained in havalat. The resealing was done at 11:40 PM, and after resealing, arrest has been stated to have been made, whereas the arrest memos clearly depict that arrests were made between 10:00 PM and 10:45 PM, and jama talashi was also taken at that time. This contradictory evidence reflects that the truth is being withheld from being brought on record, which creates doubt about the veracity of prosecution case. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the slightest benefit has to be extended in favour of accused persons.

As per prosecution case recovered charas was in the shape of sticks, ball and rectangular, but PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, in his deposition in the Court has stated that it was in the shape of ball, sticks, rectangular as well as chapati, but no other document on records depicts so. It is also apt to record that in State FSL reports Ex. PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B, there is no mention of nature of charas received by them for chemical analysis.

It is case of the prosecution that, firstly, 25 grams sample was sent for chemical analysis, and later on, the entire bulk was sent for chemical analysis. PW-8 Prakash Chand, MHC, has placed on record the extract of malkhana register Ex. PW-8/A along with Road Certificate No. 110/08-09 Ex. PW-8/B. Vide this RC, a sample of contraband of 25 grams was sent to FSL Junga through Constable Ashok Kumar, and the RC also depicts so. However, there is no entry regarding sending of entire remaining bulk for chemical analysis in Malkhana Register, and hence, there is no corresponding entry in the extract of malkhana register.

PW-8 Prakash Chand has also admitted that except for the sample shown in red circle on extract of Malkhana Register, nothing more was sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, evidence regarding sending of remaining bulk for chemical analysis is missing.

According to PW-9 Ajeet Singh, on 29.07.2009, MHC Satya Prakash had handed over to him 1.950 Kilograms of contraband along with RC No. 61/09 for depositing in FSL Junga,, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that samples which were handed over to him were embossed with seals 'D' and 'T'. Admittedly, seals 'D' and 'T' were never used in present case; instead, seals 'M' and 'Y' were used by the Investigating Officer as well as the resealing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ajeet Singh was handed over the same contraband in SFSL Junga which was alleged to have been recovered from Labh Singh and the other co-accused.

It is also a fact that RC No. 61/09 has not been placed or proved on record and MHC Satya Prakash was also not examined. Therefore, there is no evidence on record of sending the entire bulk to FSL sealed with seal 'M' and resealed with seal 'Y' through RC No. 61/09. Non-production of the RC creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case.

It is also apt to record that in State FSL reports Ex. PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B, there is no mention of RC number through which sample or contraband was deposited with the State FSL. In Ex. PW-12/A, though it has been stated that parcel of sample was received through PW-7 Ashok Kumar, there is no RC number mentioned in this report, nor there is any mention of nature of shape of the substance. Similarly, in Ex. PW-12/B, the shape of contraband received and deposited in the FSL has not been mentioned. This omission in itself, as a single circumstance may not be fatal for the prosecution, however, the fact remains that there is no mention of RC No. 61/09 in report Ex. PW-12/B, and the said RC has not been produced to complete the link. Not only this, according to FSL, parcel was sealed with 'M' and resealed with 'Y', but PW-9 Ajeet Singh, who allegedly took the entire bulk to Junga, has categorically stated that the samples handed over to him were embossed with seals 'D' and 'T'. There is a huge difference between the shapes of 'M' and 'Y' versus 'D' and 'T'. In absence of RC No. 61/09, it is not possible to ascertain as to which parcel was taken by PW-9 Constable Ajeet Singh to the State FSL.

There is another discrepancy that after taking out two samples of 25 grams each, the remaining bulk was 1.950 Kilograms, but in State FSL, the bulk received, as referred to in Ex. PW-12/B, was 1.850 Kilograms. In a short span of time, the reduction in mass of contraband by about 100 grams is a significant discrepancy, and in absence of evidence to reconcile the same with the remaining contraband of 1.950 Kilograms, this report is of no help to the appellant.

According to PW-13 ASI Amar Nath, on the way from Police Station to spot, they stopped the vehicle at a place called Tunnel, and after 10 minutes, they started from the Tunnel towards the spot. On the contrary, PW-5 Dhani Ram has stated that the police party did not stop on the way to the spot. PW-5 Dhani Ram has further stated that he was not aware of how the person who took the ruqqa from the spot to the Police Station left the spot.

According to PW-13, the police party had taken the cloth with them, and the parcel was stitched on the spot with needle and thread. On seeing the parcel in the Court, this witness (Investigating Officer) has stated that the parcels were stitched already on two sides. The discrepancies and contradictions referred supra, in isolation, may not be fatal for the prosecution, but the cumulative impact of all these discrepancies, especially the absence of evidence to connect FSL report Ex. PW-12/B with the contraband alleged to have been recovered and seized by the police party, no ground is made out for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

The respondents have benefit of being acquitted by the Trial Court, fortifying the presumption of innocence in their favour and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents by leading cogent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring evidence on record.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Before parting, in view of the provisions of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Contraband be kept intact during the limitation period for filing appeal/petition or receiving the notice/summons from the Apex Court.

Bail bonds furnished in this appeal, at the time of admission of appeal, stand discharged. However, bail bonds to be furnished under Section 481 of BNSS remain in force, as already directed.

Record of Trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed in the same terms.