Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.PW14 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini has proved the report prepared by her with respect to the analysis conducted by her of the sample mark A sent to FSL during investigation. The said report has been exhibited as Ex. PW14/A and as per the said report, the sample Mark A was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine, monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine, diacetylmrophine, phenobarbital and SC No.15/09 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors.

alprazolam, the percentage of diacetylmorphine to be 28.9%. As per record on an application filed on behalf of the accused persons, during trial a fresh sample from the case property, Ex.X1 was sent to FSL for analysis and as per the deposition of this witness the said sample was also analysed by her and as per her report EXPW14/B, it was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine and diacetylmorphine, the percentage of diacetylmorphine to be 16.01%.

per the FSL report Ex.PW14/A i.e. the report that was prepared with respect to the sample sent during investigation, the said sample was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine, monoacetylmorphine, acetyl codeine, diacetylmorphine (28.9%), phenobarbital (2.7%) and alprazolam (9.7%). However with respect to the sample drawn from the case property produced during trial, as per Ex.PW14/B the said sample was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine and diacetylmorphine only. There is no reference in the said report about the presence of monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine, phenobarbital or alprazolam in the said sample. Though initially when Dr. Madhulika Sharma was examined as PW14 on 17.02.2011, she was neither asked by the prosecution nor by the defence about the said variation in the two reports, subsequently this court vide order dated 27.05.2014 had recalled the said witness for seeking an explanation with respect to the variation in the two reports on the request made by both Ld. APP and the Ld. Defence counsel and taking into consideration the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Rajni Devi Vs. State 2006 CRI.L.J. 891, wherein it has been held that where a substance recovered from an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act is got retested, it is the duty of the prosecution and the court to examine the said witness with respect to the said variation. PW14 Dr. Madhulika Sharma in pursuance of the said order had again appeared SC No.15/09 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors.

in the court on 02.06.2014 alongwith the notes and chromatographs prepared by her during the analysis conducted by her with respect to the two aforementioned samples. On the basis of the said notes/chromatographs (Ex.PW14/C and PW14/D), the said witness has inter alia deposed before this court that during analysis of the sample sent by the court, though the said sample was also found to contain phenobarbital, acetylcodeine, monoacetylmorphine and Alprazolam, their percentage was so minuscule that it was not even possible to quantify the same at all. She has further specifically deposed that in her opinion no chemical reaction over a passage of time could have reduced the percentage of phenobarbital, acetylcodeine, monoacetylmorphine and alprazolam in the sample and that therefore it appears that the sample sent on the second occasion by the court had been diluted to a huge extent. She had further pointed out that as per her notes and chromatographs prepared, even the quantity of paracetamol had reduced to a great extent between the two samples. In the considered opinion of this court the said deposition of the Chemical Examiner cannot at all be brushed aside and infact proves the assertion of the defence that the case property has been tampered with.