Chandigarh: It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the chain of evidence and even a single flaw/break in the chain makes the prosecution’s case doubtful. Observing this, a local court acquitted Rajinder Kumar alias Mohinder Singh of Burail village in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act five years ago. According to the prosecution, the police had arrested Rajinder with 10 grams of heroin near Sector 45 Mandi Ground on June 4, 2019. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused. Finding a prima facie case, the court framed charges against the accused under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded innocent and claimed trial. The public prosecutor argued that the prosecution was able to prove the charges against the accused. The witnesses also supported the prosecution’s case.
The accused’s counsel Dixit Arora argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. He said that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were violated. It was mandatory for the investigating agency to serve notice to the accused before initiating personal search of him, which the agency did not follow. The alleged heroin was recovered from the accused from a public place, but the investigating officer did not have any independent witness. Arora also argued that the drug samples sent to the CFSL were returned because the name of the accused was wrongly spelt as Rajinder Singh. The prosecution failed to prove who procured the samples before the magistrate for the second time. The court found that there was no document to show that no effort was made to involve independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove who procured the samples before the magistrate for the second time. Even the police register did not contain the information as to through whom the samples and case property were sent. This amounts to a lapse of evidence. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the chain of evidence. If there is even a single defect/break in the chain of evidence, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. In view of this, the accused was given the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
