Delhi District Court
State vs Suhail on 18 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. MEENA CHAUHAN, DJS
FIR No. 84/2019
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 27(a) NDPS Act
State v. Suhail
CIS No. 13488/2019
Date of Institution of case: 25.10.2019
Date when Judgment reserved: 08.12.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 18.12.2023
JUDGMENT:
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 84/19 PS: Chandni Mahal Date of the commission of b : 29.06.2019 the offence c Name of the Complainant : Ct. Ruplal, Belt No. 1408/C Name of Accused person Suhail S/o Sh. Jamal, R/o House no.
d and his parentage and : 2142, Gali Ahata, Meer Bukhari,
residence Turkman Gate, Delhi
e Offence complained of : U/s 27(a)/61/85 NDPS Act
Plea of the Accused and
f : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination)
g Final Order : Acquittal
h Date of Order : 18.12.2023
FIR No. 84/2019
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 27(a) NDPS Act
State v. Suhail page no. 1/18
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 29.06.2019 at about 09:40 pm at Bara Park, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate, Delhi, accused Suhail was found consuming smack / Diacetylmorphine with the help of a pipe and panni and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as NDPS Act).
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.
Cognizance of offence as mentioned in the chargesheet was taken by the court. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter, notice under section 27 (a) NDPS Act was framed against him on 31.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined six (06) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
4. PW-1 Ct. Ashish has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 29.06.2019, he was posted at PS Chandni Mahal as Constable. On that day, after receiving DD No. 27 PPT, he along with ASI Prakash Chand reached FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 2/18 Bara Park, DDA Flat, Turkman Gate, where they met with Ct. Roop Lal who had apprehended one person namely Suhel. He has correctly identified the accused. He deposed that Ct. Roop Lal had also produced a panni pipe and a match box make ship and some burnt and some unburnt match sticks. He deposed that IO had asked 4-5 passersby to join the investigation but they left the spot without giving names and addresses. IO asked for the personal search of the accused but he refused and told that he would give his search only before the Magistrate. IO had also served a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act which is Ex.PW1/X. The IO had given his own personal search prior to searching the accused. Accused was personally searched. On search only panni pipe and match box make shop and some burnt and some unburnt match sticks were recovered which was seized by the IO and seizure memo was prepared Ex.PW1/Y. The seized pullanda was sealed with the seal of CHML and the used seal was handed over to Ct. Roop Lal. IO had filled the FSL form at the spot. Ct. Roop Lal went to PS alongwith tehrir for registration of FIR. Ct. Roop Lal came to the spot along with a copy of FIR and original rukka. IO had prepared a site plan Ex. PW/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A. He has correctly identified a match box containing panni pipe (smack) and some burnt and unburnt matchsticks Ex.P-1 which was recovered from the possession of the accused.
FIR No. 84/2019PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 3/18
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-1 stated that IO had asked public persons to join the investigation but they refused. IO had not served any notice to the public persons due to paucity of time. The matchsticks recovered from the accused are easily available in the market. He denied the suggestion that the case property had been falsely planted upon the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigation at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2 Ct. Ruplal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 29.06.2019, he was posted as Ct. at PS Chandni Mahal. He was on patrolling duty. At around 9:40pm, when he reached at Bada Park, DDA Flat, Turkman Gate, he saw a person who was consuming smack by holding the matchbox under the thumb of his right foot and he was lighting up a match stick and in his left hand he was holding a pinni while in his right hand he was having a pipe through which he was consuming smack from the pinni. He apprehended him. He informed about the incident to the duty officer of the PP Turkman Gate, who in compliance of which, sent the IO namely ASI Prakash Chandra and HC Ashish to the spot. He handed over the accused and a panni pipe and a match box make ship and some burnt and some unburnt match sticks to the IO. He deposed that IO had asked 4-5 passerby FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 4/18 to join the investigation but they left the spot without giving names and addresses. IO asked for the personal search of the accused. IO had also served a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and also made him aware about his right of search. The recovered panni pipe and match box make shop and some burnt and some unburnt match sticks were seized by the IO and seizure memo was prepared Ex.PW1/Y. The seized pullanda was sealed with the seal of CHMHL II and the used seal was handed over to him. IO had filled the FSL form at the spot. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A. He went to PS along with tehrir for registration of FIR. He came to the spot alone and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He has correctly identified the accused. He has correctly identified a match box containing pannipipe (smack) and some burnt and unburnt matchsticks Ex.P-1 which was recovered from the possession of the accused.
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 stated that IO had asked public persons to join the investigation but they refused. IO had not served any notice to the public persons due to paucity of time. He admitted the suggestion that the matchsticks recovered from the accused are easily available in the market. He denied the suggestion that the case property had been falsely planted upon the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
FIR No. 84/2019PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 5/18 He denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigation at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 HC Yaad Ram has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 29.07.2019, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi. He handed over one sealed pullanda containing silver foil, paper, pipe having smack powder and some burnt & unburnt matchsticks to ASI Sohan Lal to deposit the same in FSL, Rohini at the instance of the IO vide road certificate no. 43/21/19. After depositing the same in the FSL, ASI Sohan Lal handed over me the FSL acknowledgement of acceptance of the above said pullanda dt. 29.07.2019. The copy of the FSL acknowledgement Ex. PW-3/A. The road certificate no. 43/21/19 dt. 29.07.2019 Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signature at point A. Till the time case property was in his custody and under his supervision no kind of tempering had been done with the same. An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness given to the accused, however the same is not availed.
9. PW-4 ASI Rajiv Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he brought true copy of the DD entry 3812 dt. 01.07.2019 duly signed by the ACP Daryaganj of the information received u/s 57 NDPS regarding recovery and arrest of accused in the present case provided by the IO/ASI Prakash Chand, PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi to the ACP office, Daryaganj, Delhi. The same was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A. An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness given to the accused, however the same is not availed.
FIR No. 84/2019PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 6/18
10. PW-5 SI Sohan Lal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 29.07.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi. On the same day, at the instance of the IO, he collected one sealed pullanda duly sealed with CHMHL-II containing silver foil, paper, pipe having smack powder and some burnt & unburnt matchsticks from the MHC(M) to deposit the same in FSL, Rohini vide road certificate no. 43/21/19. After depositing the same in the FSL, Rohini, he deposited the FSL acknowledgement of acceptance of the above said pullanda dt. 29.07.2019 in the Malkhana and handed over the copy of the same to IO. The copy of the FSL acknowledgement No. SFSL(DLH)/7513/CHEM/2451/19 Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. The road certificate no. 43/21/19 dt. 29.07.2019 Ex.PW-3/B. Till the time, case property was in his custody and under his supervision no kind of tempering had been done with the same. An opportunity for cross- examination of the witness given to the accused, however the same is not availed.
11.PW-6 ASI Prakash Chand has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 26.09.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Chandni Mahal. On that day, after receiving DD no.27 PPT, he along with Ct. Ashish reached Bada Park, DDA Flat, Turkman Gate where they met Ct. Roop Lal who had apprehended one person whose name on enquiry was revealed as Suhail. He has correctly identified the accused. Ct. Ashish handed over the custody of the accused along-with case property i.e. Pani Pipe, Matchbox make Ship and some burnt and unburnt match sticks. He asked 4-5 persons for joined the FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 7/18 investigation but they all left the spot without disclosing their name and address. Due to paucity of time no notice could be served upon them. He served the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused Ex.PW-1/X bearing his signature at point A to which the accused replied that he does not want to give any search in presence of any Gaz. Officer or Magistrate. He had given his own personal search prior to searching the accused and thereafter, he carried out cursory search of the accused and only notice u/s 50 NDPS Act recovered from his possession which was given by him. He seized the case property after preparing the pullanda by keeping the same in white cloth and seized with the seal of CHMHL-II and prepared the FSL form at the spot and handed over the seal after use to constable Ashish and prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/Y. He recorded the statement of Ct. Roop Lal Ex.PW-2/A. He prepared the Tehrir Ex.PW-6/A and handed over the same to Ct. Roop Lal along with case property, FSL form and seizure memo and case property for registration of FIR and also gave the instruction to Ct. Roop Lal to hand over the same to SHO Chandni Mahal. After sometime Ct. Roop Lal came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original Tehrir and handed over the same to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Roop Lal Ex.PW-1/A. He arrested the accused, carried out his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D. The accused was released on police bail being a bailable offence. He recorded the supplementary statement of Ct. Roop Lal and statement of Ct. Ashish u/s 161 Cr.P.C and they were discharged. He also gave the information about the arrest of accused and recovery of case FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 8/18 property was given to the concerned ACP u/s 57 NDPS Act vide memo Ex.PW-4/A. The case property was sent to FSL for opinion through ASI Sohan Lal vide RC number 43/21/19 Ex.PW-3/B. He collected FSL opinion dated 22.08.2019 Ex.A-4. He also recorded the statement of ASI Sohan Lal and Insp. Binod Kumar Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the concerned court.
12.During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-6 admitted that he was not an eyewitness. Ct. Roop Lal informed him about the case property recovered from the possession of the accused. He admitted that there were public persons at the park. He admitted that no medical was conducted of the accused at the time of apprehension. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused. He received information at about 09:45 p.m and reached the spot at about 10:00 am and he left the spot at about 01:00 am. He admitted that there were no CCTV cameras installed at the spot/park. He denied the suggestion that the case property planted upon the accused at the instance of Ct. Rooplal. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
13.Vide statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 21.08.2019, the accused admitted an FIR as Ex. A-1, Endorsement on Rukka as Ex. A-2, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. A-3 and FSL result as Ex A-4. Vide statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 23.09.2023, the accused admitted DD No. 25PPT and DD No. 27PPT dated 29.06.2019 as Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6, DD No. 5A and DD no. 6A dated FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 9/18 30.06.2019 as Ex. A-7 and Ex. A-8, factum of statement of HC Yaad Ram and Inspector Binod Kumar Singh as Ex. A-9 and Ex. A-10. The prosecution evidence was closed on 23.09.2023. Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that recovery has been planted. He stated that he has not committed any offence. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
14.Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused was consuming narcotics, which is an offence. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses have proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 27 NDPS Act. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
15.Ld. LAC, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is contended that all the proceedings had been prepared by the police officials while sitting in the police station and that a Narcotics substance had been planted upon the accused. The alleged place of incident was a thickly populated area, despite that no public person was joined in the proceedings. There is nothing on Court record to prove that any efforts were made to join any FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 10/18 public person in the proceedings and no medical test of the accused was conducted to prove that he was consuming illegal substances, which creates doubt on the statements of the police officials. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
16.It is the cardinal principle of the Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of the accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
17. In the present case, the accused has been charged for an offence punishable under Section 27 of NDPS Act. The section provides punishment for consuming narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances.
18.After considering respective arguments and evidence led by prosecution, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused deserves acquittal on following grounds:-
19. Firstly, no public witness has been joined in the investigation. Perusal of the record of the present case would show that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials. No independent public witness had joined the investigation.
There is no explanation on the record for non joining of the public persons.
FIR No. 84/2019PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 11/18 In the present case, police officials did not act in a prudent manner, which creates doubt on the proceedings conducted by the police officials. The IO did not make any genuine efforts in the present case to get an independent public witness join the investigation despite the spot being a crowded area. Relevant sections are cited below:
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that, "before making a search under this Chapters, 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 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..."
Section 37 Cr.P.C states that, "every person is bound to assist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid-
(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ;
(b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or
(c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property."
Section 42 Cr.P.C. states that, "when any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offene refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name of residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so required;
Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety of sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty- four hours from the time of arrest or should he fail to edxecute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 12/18 Magistrate having jurisdiction."
Section 187 IPC states that, "whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
20.In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
21.Considering facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witness with the FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 13/18 recovery proceedings and thereafter in the proceedings qua the serving of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and thereon and to strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation. Hence, the abovementioned creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
22.Secondly, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. It is pertinent here to note that as per PW-1 seal after its use was handed over to Ct. Rooplal and PW-2 deposed on similar lines in this regard. However, PW-6 who is the investigating officer of the present case, deposed that the seal after its use has been handed over to Ct. Ashish. Since, the seal has not been handed over in presence of any other public witnesses, and testimony of all the PWs are in contradiction as to the person to whom the seal was handed over, this question is open to the interpretation as to with whom the custody of the seal was after seizure of the case property. It further questions the genuineness of the seizure proceedings and safe custody of the case property. For the sake of arguments even believing that the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rooplal, who happens to be the complainant of this case, again question arises over the safe custody of the case property as possibilities of the tampering of the case property at this stage could not be negated. It appears that no efforts were made to hand over the seal after use to an independent person. Further, no DD entry of handing over or returning FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 14/18 of seal has been proved on record. I am conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, that:
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
23.The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also held in Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, that:
"7. The very purpose of giving a seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
24.Thirdly, the case property was sent to FSL with the delay. The case property was deposited in the maalkhana on 29.06.2019, while the same was sent to FSL on 29.07.2019. There is no explanation as to why the case property was kept in maalkhana for more than 25 days. The persons whose seals were affixed on the case property were posted in the same police station and they had the custody of the seal also. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
25. Fourthly, the IO had issued a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act, which is Ex. PW1/X. However, perusal of this notice would show that no time has been mentioned thereon when the notice was given. The place where the FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 15/18 notice was given was also not mentioned.
26.Besides all this, the seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW1/Y, bears the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, Ex. PW1/Y was prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then how Ex. PW1/Y bears the FIR number. Now, I consider the observation made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or the number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused.
27. Further, the undersigned has seen the FSL report Ex. A4. In the FSL report, it has been mentioned that none of the narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances were detected in the blood sample of the accused. Thus, it is shown that the accused had not consumed any drugs or psychotropic substance as provided under Section 27 of NDPS Act. There is nothing on Court record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of the accused. The alleged match stick was stated to be found on the ground. The polythene was also stated to be found near the spot and none of these items were recovered from FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 16/18 the possession of the accused.
28.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was consuming Diacetyl morphine, if that be so then the IO must have done the medical examination of the accused immediately as to whether Diacetyl morphine was present in the blood / body of the accused or not. This could have been the best scientific evidence for the prosecution to prove its case but no such steps were taken by the investigating officer. This creates a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution.
29. In the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P reported as 1972 CRI.L.J. 511(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"...in our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which could negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the stan dard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..."
CONCLUSION:
30. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 17/18 entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
31.Since all the witnesses are police personnels and the necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the investigating officer, I am of the view that chances of false implication cannot be ruled out at the instance of the police. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to successfully build the case against the accused. As there are material deficiencies in the prosecution case, it is a fit case in which benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Accused Suhail S/o Sh. Jamal, R/o House no. 2142, Gali Ahata, Meer Bukhari, Turkman Gate, Delhi is thus entitled to benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted of the charges framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed. File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on today i.e. 18.12.2023. MEENA by MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date:
2023.12.18 16:48:12 +0530 (MEENA CHAUHAN) Metropolitan Magistrate-08 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 18 ages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] FIR No. 84/2019 PS: Chandni Mahal U/s 27(a) NDPS Act State v. Suhail page no. 18/18