Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) The aforementioned contention of the accused also draws support from the two inconsistent FSL reports proved on record. As narrated hereinabove, on an application filed on behalf of the accused persons, the samples of the contraband allegedly recovered from the FIR No. 68/07 PS Spl. Cell accused persons was sent for re­testing to FSL vide orders of the Ld. Predecessor dated 01.09.2010. Now as per the first FSL report, Ex.PW14/A i.e. the report that was prepared with respect to the four samples sent to it during investigation, the said samples were found to contain acetylcodeine, monoacetylmorphine, diacetylmorphine and Dextromethorphan. It is also stated in the said report that the samples were found to be creamish yellow colour powder. However, with respect to the two samples drawn from the case property produced in the court, the FSL has reported vide Ex.PW14/B that they were found to contain Caffeine and diacetylmorphine. Thus, it is clear that the chemical constituents of the samples deposited during investigation and those drawn out from the case property during trial were not found out to be same. Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Deputy Director, FSL, Rohini who has prepared both the said reports was examined as PW14 and in her cross­examination she has specifically stated that it is not scientifically possible that Dextromethorphan or acetylcodeine or diacetylmorphine would get converted into caffeine and if all the samples tested by her were drawn from the same substance dextromethorphan and acetylcodeine should have been present even in the second test conducted by her. She was also specifically put a question on behalf of the defence to the effect whether it FIR No. 68/07 PS Spl. Cell is possible in the present case that diacetylmorphine found in the first sample got degraded into monoacetylmorphine or morphine in the second sample and she categorically stated that it was not possible. In view of the said two reports and the deposition of the Chemical Examiner, it is to be inferred that the samples sent to the FSL for the first time by the investigating agency could not have been drawn out from the contraband/case property that was produced before the court and from which a second sample was sent for re­testing. Ld. APP for the State has been at pains to explain the difference in the two FSL reports and it is evident that the case property in the present case has been tampered with.