1 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 2025:CGHC:40199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1484 of 2016 Lal Gulal Patel S/o Kanhai Lal Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ….. Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baradwar, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ….Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 11/08/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/11/2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Case No. 18/2015, whereby the learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.19 17:51:53 +0530 2 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Section 20 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as’ the NDPS Act’) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 6 months. 1. (a) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22/08/2015 i.e. the date of incident, an information was received from an informant that the accused, Lal Gulal Patel S/o Kanhai Lal Patel, had unlawfully planted a cannabis plant in the compound of his own house. Acting upon this information, the SDO of Sakti, along with staff, proceeded to the village survey area and, in the presence of witnesses Khageshwar (PW1) and Budhram (PW2), conducted an inquiry under Section 160 CrPC and prepared a site and soil panchnama. In compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, notice was served on the accused and, with his consent, one green, moist cannabis plant worth approximately ₹3,000/- was seized from his compound in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo was prepared. (b) The accused was subsequently arrested on 22/08/2015 under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and sent to judicial custody. He denied the allegations and claimed trial, stating under Section 313 CrPC that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He did not present any evidence in his defense. 3 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 (c) To substantiate its case, the prosecution recorded statements of witnesses including Khageshwar (PW1), Budhram (PW2), Dhruv Kumar (Head Constable) (PW3), Mayank Mishra (Sub-Inspector) (PW4), Amit Kumar Tripathi (Patwari) (PW5), Pushpanath Bhagat (Constable) (PW6), Mahavir Prasad (Head Constable) (PW7), and Vijay Kumar (Constable) (PW8). The prosecution also relied on documentary evidence including the confidential informant panchnama, seizure memos, search panchnamas, weighing and sample panchnamas, FSL reports, and related registers, totaling 49 exhibits presented before the Court. 2. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged cannabis plant was recovered from the property belonging to the appellant. It is contended that the alleged place of seizure, i.e., the Badi, has not been proved to be in the exclusive ownership or possession of the appellant. The prosecution has relied solely upon Ex.P/38 (Naksha) to establish ownership. However, the said document is not sufficient in law to 4 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 conclusively prove ownership, particularly when the Patwari (PW5), who has prepared Ex.P/38, stands unsupported by independent corroboration. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the Panch witnesses (PW1 & PW2), who were cited as attesting witnesses of the Naksha (Ex.P/38), have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the seizure witnesses have not supported the alleged recovery and have also turned hostile. Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution’s case has crumbled. (c) Learned counsel would submit that it is a settled principle that when seizure witnesses and independent witnesses do not support the prosecution, the case rests merely on official testimony, which, in absence of corroboration, is unsafe to rely upon. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and any material lacuna must enure to the benefit of the accused. Mere suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof. (d) In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ownership of the alleged place of recovery as that of the appellant, nor has it been able to prove the recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of hostile witnesses further demolishes the prosecution story and creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law and facts and he deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed 5 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 against him 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence available on record. The Patwari (PW5) has proved the preparation of Naksha (Ex.P/38), which indicates the place of recovery, and the official witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that mere hostility of some witnesses does not by itself demolish the prosecution case, so long as the core testimony of official witnesses inspires confidence. The trial Court has appreciated the material evidence in proper perspective, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant was justified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously evaluated the case record. 6. PW-1 Khageshwar, Kotwar of the village, has stated in his examination- in-chief that he knows the accused present in Court, but he has no knowledge about the alleged incident. He deposed that being a Kotwar he used to visit the police station frequently and on such occasions the police obtained his signatures on certain papers. He further stated that he was served with notice (Ex.P/1) and admitted his signatures on several documents viz. Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/15, but clarified that he was unaware of the contents thereof. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that about three months prior, in his presence, a cannabis plant weighing about 2.2 kg was 6 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 seized from the Badi of the accused. He also denied that any seizure proceedings were carried out in his presence, or that his statement was ever recorded by the police. 7. PW-2 Budhram, Kotwar of the village, has stated in his examination-in- chief that he knows the accused present in Court, but he has no knowledge about the alleged incident. He deposed that being a Kotwar he used to visit the police station frequently and on such occasions the police obtained his signatures on certain papers. He admitted that notice (Ex.P/1) was served upon him and also admitted his signatures on documents Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/15, but clarified that he was not aware of their contents. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that about three months prior, in his presence, a cannabis plant weighing about 2.2 kg was seized from the Badi of the accused. He also denied that any seizure proceedings were carried out in his presence or that his statement was ever recorded by the police. He further denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the accused and was deliberately resiling from the police proceedings to save him. 8. PW-3, Dhruv Kumar (Head Constable) deposed that on 22.08.2015 at about 18:00 hrs, he received Mukhbir Soochna Panchnama (Ex.P/16) brought by Constable No.466 of P.S. Baradwar and issued its acknowledgment (Ex.P/17). He further stated that after receipt, he made the necessary entries under Section 57 NDPS Act in the inward-outward 7 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 register (Ex.P/18 & Ex.P/18C). In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that the documents and entries were prepared later at the instance of the police. 9. PW-4, Mayank Mishra (Sub-Inspector) deposed that on 22.08.2015, he issued notice (Ex.P/1) to the witnesses and prepared Mukhbir Soochna Panchnama (Ex.P/16). He further stated that since there was apprehension of the accused destroying evidence or absconding, he informed the SDOP (Ex.P/19) without obtaining a search warrant. He also gave notice to the accused under Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.P/2), upon which the accused consented for search by him (Ex.P/3), and thereafter personal search of police staff was conducted (Ex.P/4 to P/6). He further stated that on 22.08.2015, he searched the badi adjoining the house of the accused and recovered one cannabis plant, for which seizure memo (Ex.P/9) and identification memo (Ex.P/10) were prepared. The plant was weighed before witnesses and found to be 2 kg 200 gms (Ex.P/12), sealed (Ex.P/15) and sent for chemical examination, report of which is Ex.P/30. In cross-examination, he admitted that no document regarding ownership or possession of the badi was filed in the case. He further admitted that consent of the accused under Section 50 was not in the handwriting of the accused. He also admitted that the vehicle used in the operation was not searched, and that seal sample was not deposited with the malkhana. He further conceded that statements of local persons from 8 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 the vicinity of the spot were not recorded. 10. PW5- Amit Kumar Tripathi (Patwari) has deposed that he was posted as Halka Patwari at PH No. 1, Jarve. On 02.09.2015, under orders of the Tehsildar, he visited the spot in village Jarve in connection with Crime No. 250/15 under Section 20(A) NDPS Act, and prepared site map (Ex. P/37) and Panchnama (Ex. P/38) in presence of witnesses, bearing his signatures. In cross-examination, he admitted that Ex. P/37 does not mention khasra number, area, or whether the land is Abadi or numbered. He further admitted that no witness signed Ex. P/37, though Ex. P/38 bears witnesses’ signatures. He conceded that Ex. P/38 also does not mention khasra number, area, or ownership of land. 11. Having meticulously scrutinized the ocular and documentary evidence on record, I find that the substratum of the prosecution case stands on shaky ground. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, both Kotwars, who were projected as seizure witnesses, is wholly unreliable. They have unequivocally denied any knowledge of the alleged seizure and consistently maintained that their signatures were procured at the police station without their comprehension of the documents. Such testimony renders the so-called seizure proceedings a mere paper exercise and strips them of their evidentiary sanctity. 12. The prosecution has further relied upon PW-4, the Investigating Officer, and PW-3, the Head Constable. However, the deposition of PW-4 is 9 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 marred by serious infirmities. He himself admitted that no document demonstrating the ownership or possession of the alleged badi was ever collected, the mandatory safeguard under Section 50 NDPS Act was not complied with in its true spirit since the consent was not in the handwriting of the accused, and the seal sample was not deposited in the malkhana. More significantly, he conceded that the statements of independent local witnesses were never recorded. These lapses are not mere procedural irregularities but go to the root of the matter, vitiating the very credibility of the investigation. 13. Apart from this, the testimony of PW-5, the Patwari, also fails to inspire confidence. His admissions in cross-examination reveal that the site map and panchnama suffer from glaring deficiencies: absence of khasra number, non-mention of area or ownership, and lack of witness signatures on one of the documents. Such omissions strike at the very foundation of the prosecution’s claim that the contraband was recovered from land in the conscious possession of the accused. 14. In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where stringent penal consequences ensue, the burden on the prosecution is of the highest order, and the standard of proof must be one of absolute certainty. The law is well-settled that proof of seizure and possession must be cogent, credible, and unimpeachable. In the present case, the evidence suffers from contradictions, omissions, and procedural lapses which cumulatively create a reasonable doubt. It would, therefore, be hazardous 10 CRA No. 1484 of 2016 to sustain the conviction on such infirm evidence. 15. Consequently, this Court hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 20(A) of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted of all charges. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 17. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri