Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: apprehension, search or seizure. The charge-sheet does not disclose
any plausible explanation for such non-joining of public witnesses.
This omission assumes significance particularly in cases under the
Delhi Excise Act, where recovery and possession form the core of the
prosecution case.
Further, the seizure memo and recovery proceedings
are supported only by police witnesses who were part of the same
patrolling team. No prior information, surveillance or independent
corroboration has been placed on record to lend assurance to the
prosecution version. The possibility of false implication or
embellishment cannot be ruled out at this stage, especially when the
case rests entirely on official witnesses without independent
corroboration.
The prosecution has also relied upon the disclosure
statement of the accused. However, it is well settled that a disclosure
statement, by itself, is not substantive evidence and is inadmissible
except to the extent it leads to discovery of a fact as contemplated
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, no
recovery or discovery has been effected pursuant to the disclosure
statement. Consequently, the said disclosure statement does not
advance the prosecution case.
The excise laboratory report only establishes the nature
of the seized substance as liquor. It does not establish the legality of
the alleged recovery or the culpable possession of the accused in the
manner required by law. The forensic confirmation of liquor cannot
cure the foundational defects relating to the manner of recovery and
proof of possession.
-- 1 of 1 --