The Supreme Court has acquitted Abdul Rajik and Govind in a 2004 charas case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and movement of the samples from the time of seizure till their receipt at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
The court found that “the link evidence has been totally breached leading total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples” and held that the FSL report could not be relied upon.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan passed the judgment on appeals filed by Rajik and Govind against the judgment dated November 11, 2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had upheld their conviction.
Rajik had been sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, while Govind was sentenced to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 80,000 under the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, Inspector Rajesh Tiwari, then Station House Officer of Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, received credible information on November 29, 2004, that two persons were carrying charas in bags, one of whom was disabled.
A police team reached Bandariya Tiraha and allegedly found Rajik and Govind carrying bags. The police claimed to have recovered one kilogram of suspected charas from Rajik and 800 grams from Govind.
FIR No. 949 of 2004 was registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur District, at about 5.45 pm on November 29, 2004, under Sections 8, 18, 20 and 21 of the NDPS Act. Samples were subsequently sent to the FSL, Sagar, which reported that the substance was charas.
The two panch witnesses associated with the seizure, Mohan and Amit Sonkar, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.
The prosecution therefore relied mainly on the evidence of the police officials, particularly Inspector Tiwari. The trial court convicted both accused, and the High Court later affirmed the conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants questioned the recovery and also pointed out non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court focused particularly on the manner in which the samples were drawn, sealed and sent to the FSL.
The bench found that the seizure memo and the evidence of the seizure officer did not make it clear whether the stated weight of the recovered substance was its gross weight, including packing material, or its net weight.
Read also: सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने हिंदी जन सूचना सेवा आरंभ करने की घोषणा
It also noticed that the seizure officer had not stated that the sample packets were sealed by him or that any identifiable mark, signature or thumb impression was placed on the packets.
The court then examined the sample panchnamas and found that they too did not show that the sample packets had been secured with the signatures of the seizure officer, panch witnesses or the accused.
There was also no identifying mark by which the samples could subsequently be connected with the substance allegedly seized from the respective accused.
The handling of the samples after their deposit in the maalkhana raised further questions. The maalkhana register recorded their deposit on November 29, 2004, but contained no corresponding entry showing when they left the police station for the FSL.
The prosecution also did not produce documents such as the police station forwarding letter or road certificates to establish the safe custody and movement of the samples.
Read also: Only the Real Victim Can Authorize Settlement for Quashing Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court
The court found a more serious discrepancy in the dates. The forwarding letter issued by the Superintendent of Police’s office was dated December 1, 2004, whereas the FSL report showed that the samples were received on December 6.
The maalkhana witness also stated that the samples were sent to the FSL on December 6. The prosecution could not explain where the samples remained during the intervening five days.
The bench observed that this “grave discrepancy and the gap of five (5) days, completely breaches the link in the chain of custody.”
It also noted that the constable stated to have carried the samples to the FSL was not examined by the prosecution.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove through credible oral and documentary evidence that the samples were properly sealed and remained in safe and secure condition from the time of seizure until they reached the FSL.
It also found that there had been total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, as no effort was made to draw representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate.
The bench further refused to accept the seizure officer’s claim that the substance could be identified as charas by burning a part of it at the spot.
The court noted that there was no scientific material to show that the identity of the substance could be established merely through such a test.
In view of these lapses, the court held that the FSL report had to be discarded and that there was no other legally admissible evidence to establish that the substance recovered from the appellants was charas.
It consequently held that the prosecution had failed to prove an essential ingredient of the offence.
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court judgment dated September 5, 2006, as affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on November 26, 2010.
The appellants were acquitted of the charges. The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Case: Abdul Rajik vs State of M.P.
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. – 1561 of 2014 and 1562 of 2014
Date of Order: 16.09.2026
Status: Allowed
