Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26.As per the version put forward by the prosecution, initially the samples that were sent by the IO after drawing out the same from the allegedly recovered substance were all tested by Dr. Madhulika Sharma, PW10 and the report with respect to the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW10/A. As per the report Ex.PW10/A, the samples drawn out from the substance recovered from all the three accused persons namely S1, S2 and S3 were all found to contain caffeine, monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine and diacetylmorphine and the content of diacetylmorphine in the said three samples was found to be 76.2%, 79.5% and 86%. Now during trial, the three accused persons had filed separate applications for re­testing of the case property and the applications of accused Abdullah and Rupal were allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 05.10.2010 and the application of accused Patrick was allowed by this court vide order dated 25.07.2011. The samples drawn in court from the case property allegedly recovered from accused Abdullah and Rupal, namely samples CS2 and CS3 were examined by PW10 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Director, FSL, Rohini and the samples drawn in court from the case property allegedly recovered from accused Patrick were analysed by the Chemical Examiner PW13 Shri Narain, Assistant Director, FSL Rohini. The reports prepared by the said Chemical Examiners with respect to the retesting of the case property have been proved as Ex.PW10/B and PW13/A. Now a perusal of Ex.PW10/B shows that the samples CS2 and CS3 were only found to contain monoacetylmorphine and diacetylmorphine. Further the percentage of diacetylmorphine in the said samples was found to be 20.15% and 22.51% respectively. Similarly as per Ex.PW13/A, the sample CS1 was reported to only contain diacetylmorphine and that too to the extent of 19.09%. Though PW13 explained the variation in the reports Ex.PW10/A and PW13/A by stating that he had tested the sample sent through the court only for the presence of diacetylmorphine and that he had not tested the said sample for any other substance PW10 Dr. Madhulika Sharma has categorically stated in her deposition that during the analysis of the samples sent to her on both the occasions she had tested the sample for all their constituents. In her cross­examination conducted on 17.02.2011, the said expert has also categorically deposed that diacetylmorphine does not react with acetylcodeine and caffeine. During the course of final arguments the said deposition of the expert was relied by the Ld. Defence counsel to contend that the said expert could not explain why the substances caffeine and acetylcodeine found present in samples S1, S2 and S3 were not found subsequently during second analysis in samples CS2 and CS3 and therefore this court should draw an inference that what was allegedly recovered from the accused persons was not sent to FSL for analysis. It is only then that the State moved an application u/s 311 Cr.PC on 17.04.2013 to recall the said expert Dr. Madhulika Sharma in order to get an explanation from her as to why S1 and S2 were found to contain four chemicals namely caffeine, monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine and diacetylmorphine while on the second occasion the samples drawn from the same substance namely CS2 and CS3 were found to contain only monoacetylmorphine and diacetylmorphine. When she was recalled for re­examination on behalf of the State, in her deposition recorded on 30.04.2013, she had stated that the reason of variation in the report Ex.PW10/A and PW10/B is that during the first analysis, the quantity of caffeine and acetylcodeine was sufficient for them to be detected by the instruments used by her during analysis while the said quantities during the second analysis was not so sufficient. She however admitted in her cross­examination that caffeine is a very stable substance and that it does not gets converted into anything and that its percentage remains the same in a sample over a passage of time. She also stated that the fact that acetylcodeine was found in very small traces in the samples during the second analysis can be explained possibly by the presence of dilutents and that there is a possibility that the substance from which the sample was drawn second time had been diluted. In the considered opinion of this court, the said testimony of Dr. Madhulika Sharma is being rightly relied upon by the defence to contend that the case property has been tampered with. The deposition of this witness makes it clear that apart from tampering of the case property there is no other possible reason due to which the amount of caffeine and acetylcodeine found in the samples during the first analaysis could have disappeared to such an extent that it could not be detected during the second analysis.