Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. He has further argued that the first sample, which was sent to the FSL on 10.09.2007 was chemically analysed vide report dated 14.11.2007, (Ex.PW2/H) and the said sample contained 10.8% of diacetylmorphine, alongwith acetylcodeine and monoacetylmorphine. Whereas, the second sample, which was sent to FSL Rohini, in compliance of the order of the Court dated 08.04.2009, was analysed vide report dated 28.04.2009, and as per the same, the said sample contained only 6% of diacetylmorphine alongwith paracetamol, caffine, acetylcodeine and monoacetylmorphine. The huge discrepancy in the contents of the samples and the composition of the sample and the case property indicates that the sample, which was sent to the FSL on 10.09.2007 was no derived from the case property, which was produced in the Court and therefore makes the entire prosecution case, doubtful.

(emphasis supplied by me)

14. In the present case, the prosecution has not led any evidence for explaining the delay of about 13 days in sending the samples to FSL for chemical examination and the same violates the guidelines of NCB.

15. Perusal of the record further shows that the first sample, which was sent to the FSL on 10.09.2007 was chemically analysed vide report dated 14.11.2007, (Ex.PW2/H) and the said sample contained 10.8% of diacetylmorphine, besides acetylcodeine and monoacetylmorphine. Whereas, the second sample, which was sent to FSL Rohini, in compliance of the order of the Court dated 08.04.2009, was analysed vide report dated 28.04.2009. As per the second report dated 28.04.2009, the second sample contained only 6% of diacetylmorphine, but, it also contained paracetamol, caffine, acetylcodeine and monoacetylmorphine. It indicates that there is a huge discrepancy in the content of diacetylmorphine in the two samples. The composition of the first sample is also different from the case property, from which, it was allegedly derived by the IO on 27.08.2007. The case property was containing additional contents of paracetamol and caffine, but, the sample taken out by the IO on 27.08.2007 was not containing these contents. The discrepancy in the contents/composition of the case property and percentage of diacetylmorphine, in the two samples, makes the prosecution case, doubtful. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 302/2008, in case titled as Radhey Shyam Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 25.04.2011, as under: