Police tamper with evidence, 3 acquitted under NDPS

The case dates back to July 20, 1991. According to the prosecution, sub-inspector Zila Singh of the Anand Parbat police station received a tip-off that three people carrying bags of charas would be coming down Military Road. A raiding party of four policemen was organised and although the police asked 8 to 10 bystanders to join, only one — Anoop Singh — agreed.

The team proceeded to the T-junction at Military Road. The three accused were arrested and the drugs seized. The judge, however, found several discrepancies in the case. The material witnesses — all police officers except for one — said that SI Zila Singh received the tip-off. However, this “secret information” was not given in writing to a senior officer, as required to be done under the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. “The provision … is mandatory in nature and non-compliance of that provision vitiates the search and seizure of the case property and arrest of the accused,” said the judge. Hence the arrest was “illegal”.

Next, Anoop Singh — the only public and independent witness — turned hostile. He did not identify the accused nor the case property, which led the judge to conclude: “…. I find that the testimony of the police officials has not been corroborated by independent witnesses.”

All the witnesses, including investigation officer (IO) Zila Singh, said that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) form was filled and sealed at the spot. But this fact could not be corroborated. It was also discovered that the CFSL form was tampered with before the sample was taken to the laboratory.

The witnesses said that the case property was handed over to Station House Officer (SHO) Man Mohan Singh who then took it to the police station. The register, however, mentions the name of the IO as the person who deposited the drugs at the police station. A head constable informed the court that he was asked to replace the IO’s name with the SHO’s, at the later’s instance.

The judge said: “… tampering with the entry falsifies the prosecution case on this aspect and proves the illegal conduct of the police officers while dealing with the case property in the police station.”

In view of these facts it was obvious that the prosecution “bitterly failed” to prove that the drug samples were intact from the time the IO prepared them to the time they were taken to the chemical examiner. While the charas was seized on July 26, the samples were only sent to CFSL on August 6, and then too the seals were tampered with.

Also, while a gazetted officer arrived at the spot, the case property was not seized through a seizure memo. This is a fact “which absolutely demolishes the entire prosecution case on material particulars”, observed the judge.

The judge also said that the witnesses’ testimony was “… subject to serious infirmities, contradictions and improvements. So they are not reliable witnesses.”

The police officers also failed to make a report within 48 hours of the arrest of the accused and seizure of the case property. This is mandatory under Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

Hence the judge concluded that the “prosecution bitterly failed to prove the charge against the accused”.