Page No.# 1/33 GAHC030000812025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/5/2025 Smt. Lalengzauvi D/o Rualkhuma R/o Venglai, Lunglei R.I. Convict District Jail, Lunglei VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga (Amicus Curiae) Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 05.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 2/33 Judgment & Order (CAV) (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,J) Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. This is an appeal petition praying for quashing and setting aside the Judgment & Sentence passed by the learned Addl. District & Session Judge on 02.06.2026 & Sentence Order dated 03.08.2023 in Crl.Tr. No. 237/2021 under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 submitted by convict Smt. Lalengzauvi through the Superintendent, District Jail, Lunglei, sentencing her to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Lunglei District. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2021 at around 10:30 a.m, ASI C. Lalneihthangi seized 331.5 gms of brown powder suspected to be heroin, packed in 24 soap cases, and a steel trunk used for keeping the suspected heroin, from the residence/edible shop of the appellant at Venglai, Lunglei, in the presence of witnesses, and the appellant who was the owner of the residence, was arrested accordingly. The Seizing Officer submitted a seizure and Page No.# 3/33 arrest report to the O/C Excise & Narcotics Station, Lunglei, and requested him to register a case against the arrested person. Hence, the case was registered under Excise Case No. 103/2021-LLI, dated 18.03.2021 u/s 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 4. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses, an inventory was prepared, and samples of the seized articles were drawn before the JMFC, Lunglei, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl. 5. Upon receipt of the FSL report, which confirmed the seized contraband as heroin, and finding sufficient material in the course of the investigation, the I.O submitted the charge sheet. Accordingly, a charge under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act was framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses, after which the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC. The defence also adduced the evidence of 2 witnesses. 6. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence and the material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. Page No.# 4/33 7. At this stage, the evidence of the case may be discussed. 8. PW-1, Lalnunsanga Renthlei, who is the seizure witness, deposed that he knew the accused person, who lived in the same locality. On 18.03.2021 at around 10:30 am, while he was on the road near Saikuti Hall, he was called by his colleague, Pu Vanlalrema, stating that Excise Personnel requested them to witness the house search of the accused/appellant. He immediately went there and found Pu Vanlalrema along with the Excise Personnel. The Excise Personnel informed the accused/appellant that her house was to be searched for the recovery of contraband drugs. Accordingly, the house search was made, and they went to the room just above the store, which was used as a bedroom-cum- store room, where they found a steel trunk locked with a padlock. Pi Maneihi, ASI of Excise, asked for the keys and opened the trunk in their presence, finding 24 soap cases inside the trunk containing orange-colored powder suspected to be Heroin. Thereafter, PW-1 left the spot to attend a conference. After attending the conference, he went to the residence of Pi Maneihi, ASI of Excise, who told him about the weight of the seized article, which he did not remember exactly, but stated that it was about 300 grams. He put his signature on the seizure memo at Pi Maneihi’s residence. PW-1 exhibited the seizure and arrest memo as Exhibit P-1, wherein Exhibit P-1/1 is his signature. He identified material Exhibit- Page No.# 5/33 1 as the seized article. PW-1, in his cross-examination stated that the Excise Personnel were already there when he reached the place of occurrence. He stated that the seizure was conducted only after they reached the place. He further stated that the steel trunk was locked with a padlock, and he did not remember who opened it with a key. He further stated that he saw the seized article inside the steel trunk when they opened it, but he did not see who took out the seized article. He admitted that the seized articles were not taken out from the steel trunk during his presence. He further admitted that he did not see when the weighing, packing, and sealing of the seized article was done. He further stated that during his presence, the seizure and arrest memo were not prepared by the seizing officer. He admitted that he put his signature on a document at Pi. Maneihi’s residence later on that day. He further stated that during his presence, a body search was not conducted on the appellant. He further stated that the place of occurrence (i.e., the storeroom-cum-bedroom of the accused) was not easily accessible by the public. He further admitted that at first he did not know the amount of the seized heroin, but he knew it later from Pi. Maneihi. He also admitted that he was not present when they counted the numbers of the seized article, and he did not know whether the seized articles were heroin or not, but Page No.# 6/33 they were suspected to be heroin. He further stated that he saw the seized article packed in transparent polythene from the soap case hole and he saw that the colour was orange. He further admitted that he was not sure whether his statement was recorded or not. He also admitted that he did not know the exact time when the Excise Personnel completed the search. 9. PW-2, Vanlalrema Chawngthu, in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew the accused who was present in the court. At the relevant time, he was the Secretary of the Venglai Branch YMA, Lunglei. On 18.03.2021, at around 11:30 p.m., while he was near the Lunglei Police Station, he received a phone call from ASI PC Lalneihthangi of the Lunglei Excise Department. She requested him to witness the search of the grocery shop and residence of the accused, Maengi, at Tlabung Peng, Lunglei, and further requested that he bring another civilian along. He then called Lalnunsanga Renthlei, the Finance Secretary of Section 'B', Venglai YMA, and informed him of the matter before proceeding to the spot. Upon reaching the location, ASI Lalneihthangi and her party were already present alongside the accused. Lalnunsanga Renthlei also arrived at the scene shortly after. The search of the shop-cum-residence was conducted in their presence. Inside the bedroom-cum-store room, there was a large steel trunk locked with a padlock. Pi Maneihi, an ASI of Excise, asked the accused to Page No.# 7/33 open the trunk. While the accused refused to open it herself, she handed the key over to Pi Maneihi, who then unlocked and opened the trunk in their presence. Inside the trunk, there were a few clothes and 24 soap cases. The Excise personnel removed the soap cases and opened them, revealing a pale orange powder suspected to be heroin, which was packed in transparent polythene. The weighing, packing, and sealing of the contraband were conducted on the spot by the Excise personnel in the witness's presence. The total weight of the seized substance was 331.5 grams. He then signed the seizure memo as a seizure witness, and his statement was subsequently recorded by the Excise Department. PW-2, in his cross-examination denied that he only reached the place of occurrence after the arrest and seizure were made. He stated that he knew the exact place where they seized the article. He denied that he did not know who opened the steel trunk, identifying her as ASI C. Lalneihthangi. He admitted that he did not remember with which hand ASI C. Lalneihthangi opened the steel trunk. He denied that because he did not remember which hand she used, he could not have seen the opening of the steel trunk, maintaining that he did see it being opened. He admitted that he did not know the exact time when the seizure was conducted, but he thought it was between 11:30 a.m and 12:00 Page No.# 8/33 noon. He stated that he remembered the key to the steel trunk being given by the accused to ASI C. Lalneihthangi, but he did not know whether there was a spare key somewhere. As far as he knew, ASI C. Lalneihthangi did not conduct a bodily search upon the accused in his presence. He admitted that he did not know whether the Excise Personnel had a search warrant or authorization to conduct the search. He further stated that his statement was recorded at the Excise office. Other than the search and seizure in this instant case, he did not witness any other matter regarding the case. He admitted that he was not present at the time the sample was drawn before the Magistrate. He also admitted that the accused is not a habitual offender. 10. PW-3, Ch. Lalmuanpuia, stated that he knew the accused person who was produced before the Court. He further stated that he had been working as a constable at the Lunglei Excise Station since 2019. He stated that on 18.03.2021, at around 09:30 am, while he was on duty at the Excise office, ASI C. Lalneihthangi received information that Smt. Lalengzauvi of Tlabung Peng possessed contraband articles, and Pi Maneihi recorded the information. She also recorded the grounds of belief, and he put his signature on it at the Excise office. She then directed him to accompany her along with another constable. Before leaving the Excise office, civilian witnesses from Venglai were informed Page No.# 9/33 and requested to stand as witnesses. They then immediately proceeded to the place and reached there just before the civilian witnesses arrived. He further stated that after the arrival of the civilian witnesses, Pi Maneihi told the accused that she was suspected of possessing contraband drugs and that her house was to be searched. They then searched the shop of the accused, but nothing was recovered from it. They proceeded to the upper room, which was used as a store room-cum-bedroom, and a search was conducted in the presence of the witnesses. There was a steel trunk locked with a padlock. Pi Maneihi, the ASI of Excise, asked for the key, and the accused handed it over. Pi Maneihi opened the steel trunk in their presence, revealing a few clothes and 24 soap cases inside the trunk containing an orange-color powder suspected to be Heroin. He stated that one of the witnesses mentioned being occupied with other business and could not be present at the time of weighing, but the other civilian witness was present. The weighing, packing, and sealing were done on the spot in his presence. The total weight of the seizure was 331.5 grams. He put his signature on the seizure memo on the spot as a seizure witness. They then proceeded to the Excise office along with the accused and the seized articles. His statement was subsequently recorded by the case Investigating Officer. PW-3 exhibited the seizure and arrest memo as Exhibit P-1, wherein Exhibit P-1/3 is his signature, and exhibited the grounds of belief as Exhibit P-2. Page No.# 10/33 PW-3, in his cross-examination stated that he did not read the information recorded by ASI, C. Lalneihthangi, but he knew about the information received through her word of mouth. He further stated that he still remembered the date when ASI, C. Lalneihthangi recorded the grounds of belief, which was 18.03.2021. He further stated that they reached the residence of the accused, Lalengzauvi, before the civilian witnesses arrived, and that the steel trunk was opened by ASI, C. Lalneihthangi with a key. He admitted that he did not remember exactly who took out the seized article from the steel trunk, though it might have been ASI, C. Lalneihthangi. He denied that the civilian witnesses had not arrived before the opening of the steel trunk. He further stated that heroin was seized from the steel trunk, and he still remembered the colour of the heroin, which was whitish mixed with red. He further stated that the recovered suspected heroin was kept inside soap cases, and inside the soap cases, the powder was packed in plastic pouches; he noted that the number of soap cases recovered was 24. He denied that the place from which the seized article was recovered was accessible to the public. He further denied that he did not see the weighing, packing, and sealing, and stated that the weighing was done by ASI, C. Lalneihthangi. He further stated that while the weighing and packing were being done, one of the civilian witnesses was not present. He further stated that he did not remember which one of the civilian witnesses was absent. Page No.# 11/33 He further stated that he did not know whether a sample was drawn from each soap case, as he did not take part in that matter. He denied that ASI, C. Lalneihthangi did not prepare the seizure and arrest memo at the place of occurrence. He further denied that after preparing the seizure memo, ASI, C. Lalneihthangi did not bring the seizure memo and the accused directly to the excise office. He further stated that the search was completed at around 10:30 a.m. He admitted that he did not know whether the case I.O visited the place of occurrence or not. 11. PW-4, C. Lalneihthangi, ASI, stated that she knew the accused person who was present in the court. She stated that she lived in Venglai, Lunglei with her family, and that the accused was her next-door neighbour. She further stated that on 18.03.2021, at around 09:30 am, she received information from a secret source that Smt. Lalengzauvi of Venglai, Lunglei, had just returned from Champhai and had brought a large quantity of heroin, which was supposed to be kept inside her residence. She reduced the said information into writing and immediately proceeded to the said place with her party. She stated that on reaching the spot, she requested nearby civilians to stand as witnesses, but they refused, so she called two YMA leaders who were attending a conference at Saikuti Hall. She further stated that upon the arrival of the two civilian Page No.# 12/33 witnesses, she informed the accused that a search of her house was to be conducted on the basis of the information received. The accused requested them not to conduct the search, but they declined. She also prepared the grounds of belief under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. She stated that she conducted the search of the house in the presence of the civilian witnesses and the accused. There was a steel trunk locked with a padlock in the store room- cum-bedroom, and she directed the accused to open the said steel trunk. The accused refused, stating that she was scared to open it, and then handed over the key of the trunk to her. She further stated that when they opened the steel trunk, there were some soap cases along with a few clothes. She took out the soap cases, and upon counting them, there were 24 soap cases, all of which contained suspected heroin. She stated that weighing was also done, and the total weight was found to be 331.5 grams. During the process of weighing, one of the witnesses, Lalnunsanga Renthlei, left to attend a Sub-Hqrs. conference, and she told him to put his signature on the seizure memo afterwards. Packing and sealing were also done on the spot. She arrested the accused and seized the contraband drugs along with the steel trunk, preparing the seizure and arrest memo on the spot. Lalnunsanga Renthlei subsequently put his signature on the memo. She then brought the seized articles along with the accused to the Excise Station and submitted the seizure and arrest report to the Officer-in- Page No.# 13/33 Charge (O.C.) on the same day, i.e., 18.03.2021. The seized articles were then kept in the Excise Malkhana. She stated that Excise Case No. 103/2021-LLI dated 18.03.2021, under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act was registered against the accused, and the case was endorsed to SI Zothuamliana for investigation. The accused was also sent for medical examination. The inventory, sample drawing, and other proceedings were conducted by the said Investigating Officer. Upon receiving the FSL report, and on the basis of the investigation, the I.O found a prima facie case under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act against the accused and submitted the charge sheet. She further stated that, unfortunately, the case I.O, SI Zothuamliana, died of cancer just after he submitted the charge sheet. She noted that she had worked with the said Officer for more than 10 years and was well acquainted with his signature. PW-4, in her cross examination stated that she recorded the information received in this case. She admitted that she did not apply for an authorization as she had recorded the information she received. She stated that she submitted the information recorded by her to her Superior Officer immediately. She further stated that she started the search on the shop of the accused, which was located in the basement of the house, before the civilian witnesses arrived, and after the arrival of the civilian witnesses, they continued the search on the first Page No.# 14/33 floor of the residence of the accused. She stated that she opened the steel trunk from which the seized article was recovered. She admitted that the seized article was taken out by Excise Personnel. She further stated that samples were not drawn at the place of occurrence, and only weighing and sealing were done in the presence of the accused. She stated that the seized article was covered with polythene inside soap cases, and while weighing the seized article, they weighed it along with the polythene. She further stated that she prepared the seizure and arrest memo at the place of occurrence in the presence of the civilian witnesses, but only one of the witnesses put his signature on it at the place of occurrence. She stated that there were two civilian witnesses in this instant case. She denied that a body search was not conducted on the accused. She stated that the search and seizure were completed at around 11:00 a.m. She further stated that she did not record the statements of the witnesses, but she acknowledged that the case I.O recorded the statements of the witnesses as he sat next to her table. She further stated that she did not know whether the case I.O visited the place of occurrence. She stated that the accused is not a habitual offender under the ND&PS Act. She further stated that one of the civilian witnesses put his signature on the seizure and arrest memo inside her residence, which was next to the place of occurrence, and she did not know the exact time when the civilian witness put his signature at her residence. She Page No.# 15/33 denied that she kept the seized article along with the seizure and arrest memo at her residence while waiting for the civilian witness to put his signature. 12. The daughter of the accused/appellant was examined as DW-1, who deposed that on 17.03.2021, a person named Pu Rova requested her to keep his luggage while she was at her shop, stating, “please keep my belongings safe for me. I will come and pick them up again, they are easily lost.” Accordingly, she kept the same inside the shop. At that time, her mother, i.e., the appellant, was not present and she was not at home. On the next day, the Excise Personnel seized the said luggage, which contained suspected heroin, and they only then knew that the luggage contained heroin. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that she did not know the exact date, and that Pu Rova was not her boyfriend. She further stated that her mother and Pu Rova had no relationship, and she did not know his full name, mobile number, or address. She further stated that the luggage of Pu Rova was kept inside the trunk by her mother, but she did not know whether her mother kept the lock and key. There was no CCTV footage or other evidence to prove that the luggage was brought by Pu Rova. She admitted that she did not state any of the above to the Excise Officials or the Magistrate. She also denied the suggestion that her mother had travelled to Champhai prior to the visit by Pu Page No.# 16/33 Rova. 13. DW-2 stated that she was the neighbor of the accused/appellant, who is a widow looking after four children and one grandchild, and as far as her knowledge is concerned, the accused/appellant could not be involved in this kind of offence. On 17.03.2021, she was at the shop of the accused/appellant when Pu Rova came and handed over his luggage to the accused/appellant, asking her to keep the luggage so that it would not be lost, and left immediately, after which the accused/appellant took it. She stated that besides the shop of the accused/appellant, there are other shops and it is very convenient for passengers to keep their luggage there for some time, especially when the counter is closed. During cross-examination, DW-2 stated that the shop of the accused/appellant was not a Sumo counter. On 17.03.2021, she was at the shop of the accused/appellant at around 7:00 am, and she did not know the exact time when Pu Rova left the luggage. But at that time, the Sumo counter besides the shop was open. The luggage was a regular travel bag, but she did not know the color. Since they did not open the bag, she did not know its contents. She also stated that she was not sure whether the seized article recovered from the accused/appellant was the bag left by Pu Rova or not, and as far as she knew, Page No.# 17/33 they had no relationship. She also stated that she did not find it strange to keep such a valuable article, worth around Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred lakhs), at the shop of an unknown person. She further admitted that she could not speak to the identity of Pu Rova, she did not know the contents of the bag, and she was not present at the time of arrest and recovery. She also did not see the accused/appellant keeping the luggage of Pu Rova inside the trunk, nor did she know the color of the bag. 14. It would be apposite to note that at this stage that none of the decisions cited by the learned Amicus Curiae were rendered in a fact situation similar to the present one wherein there is a clear and unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant as to his/her culpability. 15. It is next contended that since PW-1 cannot be considered a seizure witness, there is only one independent witness left, i.e., PW-2, since PW-3, who is a Police constable, cannot be regarded as an independent witness. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the inventory prepared before the Magistrate, and comparing it with the FSL report, it is submitted that there is a significant discrepancy in the weight of the contraband mentioned in the inventory compared to what is mentioned in the FSL report, which creates doubt as to whether the samples examined by the FSL were the same ones drawn by the Page No.# 18/33 I.O before the Magistrate. It is further submitted that though PW-4 deposed that the seized article was deposited in the Malkhana, she failed to exhibit the Malkhana register, nor did she exhibit the seals used to seal the packets of contraband. Further, the Magistrate who certified the inventory was also not examined, submits the learned Amicus Curiae. 16. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the time variation pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae is not significant, as it is not more than one hour, and moreover, the witnesses did not state an exact time but instead stated an approximate time, as is evident from the use of the word ‘around’. Therefore, the said discrepancy is to be treated as a minor one. Further, with regard to the testimony of the independent witness, i.e., PW-1, it is submitted that although he was not present at the time of weighing, packing, and sealing, he witnessed the discovery of the suspected contraband from the trunk found in the bedroom of the accused/appellant. Therefore, at least that part of his evidence cannot be discarded, which supports the prosecution case. Moreover, PW-2, who is also an independent witness, has clearly deposed to the recovery as well as the weighing, packing, and sealing, and his evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. Added to that, although PW-3 is a Police constable, he also deposed to the fact of recovery of the contraband from the Page No.# 19/33 trunk found in the bedroom of the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Referring to the evidence of the DWs, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that their evidence goes against the accused/appellant inasmuch as it is discernable from the evidence of both the DWs that the accused/appellant did receive luggage containing heroin from one Pu Rova, but the explanation offered by DW-2 that it is common to receive such luggage from passengers of Sumo vehicles when the Sumo counter is closed cannot be accepted since the trunk was recovered under lock and key, not from the ground-floor shop of the accused/appellant, but from her bedroom, and the accused/appellant was also in possession of the keys. 17. Continuing her submissions, the learned Addl. 17. Continuing her submissions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that it is the accused/appellant herself who admitted in her examination under Section 313 CrPC that the recovery was made from the trunk in her bedroom, and also that upon opening the said trunk, the officials recovered 24 soap cases containing heroin which was weighed on the spot and found to be 331.5 gms. Therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused/appellant was therefore rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Page No.# 20/33 Court in the case of Punimati & Anr. Vs State of Chhatisgarh & Ors reported (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2866 in support of the proposition that it is a well-settled law that merely because a witness is an interested or related witness, his deposition cannot be discarded. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 122, with regard to the fact of conscious possession. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment as follows: “14. Thus, before the Court holds the accused guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act, possession is something that the prosecution needs to establish with cogent evidence. If the accused is found to be in possession of any contraband which is a narcotic drug, it is for the accused to account for such possession satisfactorily, if not, the presumption under Section 54 comes into place. 15. Section 54 of the NDPS Act being relevant in the context on hand is extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles. -In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of — (a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; (b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated; (c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; or (d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture Page No.# 21/33 of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily." 16. Therefore, as envisaged by the provision itself, unless and until the contrary is proved in trials of cases involving offences coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily. Therefore, it is the burden of the prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily. 22. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2SCC 513, this Court highlighted that once the prosecution proves physical possession, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how he came into possession of the contraband and prove that he was not aware of its presence or nature. The Court ruled that a person who admits that drugs were found in his possession must prove that he had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance. 23. In Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 7 SCC 465, this Court was dealing with a case where all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle when they were nabbed and recoveries were made from them. The relevant extracts from the said judgment are set out below: "19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and as noted by the trial court they were known to each other and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. 20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession." Reference has also been made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Page No.# 22/33 the case of State of Orissa Vs Sitansu Sekhar Kanungo reported in AIR OnLine (2002) SC 287, which does not however support the prosecution case. 18. Replying to the aforesaid arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the conviction cannot be based solely on the statements of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC and, moreover, in the present case, what has been admitted by the accused/appellant is the recovery of the articles from her possession, but the burden remains on the prosecution to establish that the said articles were indeed contraband drugs (heroin). He contends that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove each and every step in the chain of custody, i.e., from the point of seizure to the point of examination of the contraband by the Forensic expert, and it is in this regard that the prosecution has failed, as borne out by the discrepancies in the weight of the samples as well as the non-production of the Malkhana Register and the Seal. 19. The learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab &Anr reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417, State of Rajasthan Vs Gurmail Singh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 59, Rajesh Jagdambha Avasthi Vs State of Goa reported in (2005) 9 SCC 773. Page No.# 23/33 20. In Gurmail Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan which had set aside the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Apex Court observed as follows: “3. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Apart from other reasons recorded by the High Court, we find that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the malkhana on 20-5-1995, the malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW 6 on 5-6-1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to the Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent.” 21. In Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held the case of the prosecution to be doubtful, as the prosecution failed to explain the discrepancies in the weight of the seized contraband as mentioned by the Police and as found by the laboratory where it was sent for examination. In the said case, the weight of the contraband was mentioned as 115 gms, but on opening the same at the laboratory, the weight was found to be only 82.54 gms, which was found to be a significant difference. The Apex Court held that the credibility of the recovery proceeding must be considerably eroded if it is found that the quantity received by the Forensic Laboratory Officer was less than the quantity sealed and sent to him, and the question was not how much was seized, but whether there was an actual seizure and whether what was seized was what was sent for chemical analysis. Since the prosecution was not able to explain Page No.# 24/33 this discrepancy, it rendered the prosecution case doubtful, held the Hon’ble Apex Court in that case. 22. In Noor Aga (Supra), the Apex Court took note of various discrepancies in the physical evidence, of which the relevant one is that the seal, which ensures the sanctity of the physical evidence, was not received along with the materials either at the Malkhana or at the FSL and was not produced in Court, and no explanation whatsoever was offered. Furthermore, even the Malkhana register was not produced, and therefore, it was held that the sanctity of the recovery was not ensured. 23. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 24. In the present case, the examination of the accused/appellant person under Section 313 CrPC was done and the same being of significance for the purpose of deciding the case, the contents thereof are reproduced herein below:- “Q.1. It is in evidence that on18.03.2021 at around 9:30 AM, information was received by ASI, C. Lalneithangi that you had recently returned from Champhai and brought a large quantity of heroin which was supposed to keep in your residence. Have you anything to say? Ans:- I have no knowledge about the matter. Q2. It is in evidence that on reaching the spot ASI, C. Lalneihthangi requested the nearby civilian to stand as witness but they refused so she requested the two leaders of Venglai YMA and in their presence she informed you that search of your house were to be conducted on Page No.# 25/33 the basis of the information received by them. You requested them not to conduct search of your house. What have you got to say? Ans:- It is correct and I also know ASI C. Lalneihthangi request the nearby civilian to stand as witness but they declined. 03. It is in the evidence that on searching of your residence, they found a steel trunk locked with padlock in the store room cum bedroom. When she asked you to open the said steel trunk you replied her that you were scared to open the trunk. Have you anything to say? Ans:- It is correct. Q4. It is in evidence that you gave ASI Lalneihthangi the trunk key and on opening they recovered 24 soap cases containing heroin inside the steel trunk amongst some clothes. The said Heroin was weighed on the spot and it was 331.5 grams. What have you got to say? Ans:- It is correct. Q.5. It is also in evidence that packing and sealing were done in your presence. Have you anything to say? Ans:- Packing was done in my presence but I do not know whether they sealed it or not. Q.6.It is in the evidence that drawing of samples was done before the Ld CJM, Lunglei in your presence. Inventory was also prepared by the case IO. What have you got to say? Ans:- It is correct and sample was drawn in my presence. Q.8. It is also in the evidence that the samples of the seized items were sent to FSL, Aizawl and the report was positive for heroin. What have you got to say? Ans:- I have nothing to say. Q. 9. Do you have anything more to say? Ans:- The seized article in this case does not belongs to me and I was asked by Pu Rova to keep it for him, and I kept for him inside the said steel trunk.” 25. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae, in the course of his argument, has taken the Court through the evidence on record and has pointed out discrepancies with regard to the time of the alleged search and recovery. It Page No.# 26/33 is pointed out that PW-2 mentioned the time as 11:30 pm, whereas other PWs mentioned the time as 10:30 am. The learned Amicus Curiae fairly concedes that the time should have been recorded as 11:30 am instead of p.m, which appears to be a typographical error. The learned Amicus Curiae specifically pointed out that PW-3 stated during cross-examination that the search and recovery were completed at 10:30 am. It is further submitted that since PW-1 stated that he left the place of occurrence before the weighment and sealing, he cannot be considered a seizure witness. It is pointed out that during cross- examination, PW-1 stated that he did not see when the weighing, packing, and sealing of the seized article were done, and that the seizure memo was not prepared by the Seizing Officer in his presence, and he put his signature on the document later in the day at Pi Maneihi's residence. 26. Taking up the first contention of learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant with regard to the time variation, it is seen that the same is between 10:30 to 11:30 a.m, which is only a period of one hour and since the witness had stated an approximate time, as rightly contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the same must be regarded as an insignificant discrepancy. 27. The case of the prosecution was that the contraband i.e. heroin was recovered from a locked trunk which was found in the bedroom-cum-store room Page No.# 27/33 of the appellant on the upper floor of her house, which was not accessible to the public. It transpires from the evidence of the PWs that it was the appellant herself who had provided the key to the PW4 with which the said trunk was unlocked. As per the deposition of the PWs, the suspected heroin was found inside the said trunk in the presence of the accused, as well as the independent witnesses, i.e. PWs 1 and 2. Although PW-1 did not remain after the discovery was made and did not witness the packing, weighing, and sealing of the contraband, he did witness the fact that the said contraband was recovered in his presence. That part of his evidence is not contradicted during cross- examination. Therefore, even though he cannot be regarded as a seizure witness, the fact remains that his evidence lends credence to the testimony of the seizing officer, i.e. PW4. 28. Section 100(4) of CrPC provides as follows: “100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.” 29. From the above provision, it appears that all that is required is the presence of the witness at the time of recovery and merely because of the fact that the witness did not remain at the place of occurrence till preparation of the Page No.# 28/33 seizure list cannot be said to cause a violation of Sub-Section 3 of Section 100 of CrPC when his presence at the time of discovery itself is not disputed. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-2, who is another independent witness, could not be dislodged at all during cross examination and he clearly deposed to the recovery of the contraband as aforesaid from the possession of the accused appellant. The said evidence is further buttressed by the evidence of PW-3, who though was a police personnel, deposed clearly as to the facts of recovery of the contraband with reference to date and time and his evidence also could not be contradicted by the defense during cross examination. While it is true that Section 100(3) of CrPC requires the presence of independent respectable persons of the locality as witnesses, the law is fairly settled that in the event of failure to secure the presence of such persons of the locality, it would be sufficient compliance with the said provision if other independent witnesses are associated, provided that it is shown that attempt was made to associate persons from the locality of the place of occurrence. In the present case, the PW-4 has also clearly deposed that attempt was made to associate the neighbours of the accused, but they refused, which fact is also admitted by the accused appellant in her defense statement. The evidence as to recovery is buttressed by the fact that it was the appellant herself, who admitted in her examination under Section 313 CrPC that recovery of the contraband (heroin) Page No.# 29/33 weighing 331.5 grams was recovered from her possession as claimed by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the factum of recovery of the aforesaid quantity of contraband which was later on proved to be heroin, as per the FSL report, from the possession of the accused appellant. 30. This brings us to the question of the chain of custody that is required to be maintained from the point of recovery of the contraband till the examination of the recovered contraband or its samples by the Forensic expert. 31. In the instant case, the PW-4 has deposed that after recovery of the contraband as aforesaid, the same was packed, weighed and sealed at the place of occurrence, whereafter it was deposited at the Malkhana. 32. Although the PW-4 stated that the inventory, sample drawing and other proceedings were conducted by the investigating officer, there is no deposition as to when the samples were sent to the FSL and in what manner or as to who carried the said samples. In fact, nothing is stated as to the custody of the said samples after the completion of the process of preparing inventory and drawing of samples and certification by the Magistrate. 33. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the seal used for sealing the samples was neither deposited in the Malkhana nor produced before the Page No.# 30/33 Court at the time of trial, of course is correct, as is the fact that the Malkhana Register was not produced before the Court. 34. It appears from the report of the FSL exhibited as Exhibit P-9 that the samples were received under seal and it is stated in the said report that the parcel consisted of 24 exhibits packed in paper and enclosed in paper envelopes sealed with wax seals, the seal impression corresponding to that forwarded. From the above, it appears that the seal impressions on the sample packets corresponded to the sample of the seal that was forwarded along with the samples. However, since the FSL expert was not summoned, there was no cross examination in this regard. It may be noted that the FSL report was exhibited by the PW-4 as Exhibit P-9 as the examination of the FSL expert was waived upon the application of the defense. Therefore, especially in view of the lack of any challenge to the proper custody of the samples during cross-examination of the PWs, there does not appear to be any ground to raise suspicion of tampering with the samples, despite the deficiency noticed in the deposition of PW-4 regarding the proper custody and transmission of the samples. 35. The learned Amicus Curiae had hammered on the point of discrepancy in the weight of the samples recorded in the inventory vis-à-vis that mentioned in the FSL report. The weight of each of the 24 samples as recorded in the Page No.# 31/33 inventory is “3 samples of about 50 mgs of Heroin”, i.e., a total of 72 samples were drawn, out of which 24 samples were sent to FSL, as is mentioned in the FSL report. The weight of the samples mentioned in the FSL report varies from sample to sample within a range of 99 mg to 30 mg. What is to be noticed here is that the weight mentioned in the inventory was an approximate one, as discernable from the use of the word ‘about’, and it also appears that the weight of the samples drawn were not measured with a great deal of precision, resulting in variations thereof when weighed at the other end i.e., at the FSL. Though such precise measurement is desirable, the lack of it cannot be said to be fatal, inasmuch as, it is not the weight of the sample that is required to be proved but that of the bulk of the contraband recovered. In Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi (Supra), the Apex Court held that the credibility of the recovery proceeding stood considerably eroded by such discrepancy, but here in the instant case, the recovery itself is not in doubt, as already adverted to hereinbefore. Whatever residual doubt remained has been set at rest by the own specific admission of the accused/appellant herself regarding recovery of 331.5 gms of heroin from her possession. The law is well-settled that admissions on the part of the accused in his defence statement can be acted upon to dispel any doubts arising from gaps in the prosecution evidence and to buttress the same. They can also be taken into account under Section 58 of the Page No.# 32/33 Evidence Act. 36. In the case of Nishi Kant Jha Vs State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 422, it was held by the Apex Court that if the exculpatory part of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC is found to be false, and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the prosecution evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution evidence, keeping aside the omission to state certain aspects, has been found to be reliable on the whole and could not be discredited in cross-examination. 37. The defence set up a plea at the stage of recording defense statement that some other person named Pu Rova had handed over the contraband to the appellant and also adduced defence evidence to that end. 38. DW-1, the daughter of the appellant stated that she received the luggage from one Pu Rova, when her mother was absent, which goes contrary to what the appellant stated in her defence statement and the evidence of DW-2, who stated that the luggage (travel bag) was handed over by Pu Rova to the appellant. 39. Further, no such luggage (travel bag) was found inside the trunk, as per Page No.# 33/33 deposition of the witnesses which points towards the falsity of the exculpatory part of the appellant’s statement. Interestingly, the appellant does not deny knowledge of the contents of the luggage in her defence statements. Therefore, even going by the defence version, conscious possession of the contraband can readily be presumed under Section 54 of the ND&PS Act. 40. The defence story, has been found to be false and considering the evidence on record, i.e., the circumstances of the recovery where the appellant herself handed over the key to the trunk to the PW-4, which was found in the bedroom of the appellant, coupled with her own admission in this regard, it must be held that prosecution has duly proved the conscious possession of the contraband by the appellant, which she has failed to satisfactorily account for. 41. For the reasons as discussed above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order which stands affirmed and the Appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant