ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P
The prosecution cannot rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples.
No. The prosecution cannot rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples. The prosecution must prove, by proper link evidence, that samples drawn from the seized contraband were properly sealed and remained safe and secure from the time of seizure till their receipt at the FSL; an unexplained gap in custody compromises the sanctity of the samples and casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. (¶29, 30, 34)
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Chain of custody — Link evidence — ss.42, 50 — FSL report —
NDPS Act, 1985 — Chain of custody — Link evidence —
Held: The prosecution cannot rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples. Safe and secure custody from seizure till receipt at the FSL must be proved by proper link evidence. (¶29, 30, 34)
NDPS Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Non-compliance —
Held further: Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself vitiate the trial, but total non-compliance is a relevant factor in assessing whether the link evidence was proved. (¶31, 32, 33)
NDPS Act, 1985 — ss.42, 50 — Open public place —
Held further: Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act do not apply where the accused is apprehended and searched in an open public place. (¶16)
FSL report — Essential ingredient —
Held further: Once the FSL report is excluded, the recovered substance cannot be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence. Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and the accused-appellants acquitted. (¶35, 37, 38, 39)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 29There is yet another material inconsistency in the prosecution case which further undermines the prosecution’s case regarding the chain of custody. The forwarding letter issued from the Office of Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P-45) bears the date 1st December, 2004 whereas the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) records that the samples were received through Constable Ramkrishna on 6th December, 2004. Even Ramnath Pandey (PW-2) in his oral evidence, stated that the samples were sent to the FSL on 6th December, 2004. The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to where and in whose custody the samples remained during the period between 1st December, 2004 and 6th December, 2004. This grave discrepancy and the gap of five (5) days, completely breaches the link in the chain of custody, which was required to be established if the prosecution was desirous of placing reliance on the FSL report (Exhibit P-46). However, neither was the carrier Constable Ramkrishna examined in evidence nor did the prosecution offer any plausible explanation for the discrepancy referred to supra.
Paragraph 30It is trite that the prosecution has to prove, by proper link evidence, that the samples extracted by seizure officer from the recovered contraband were properly sealed and remained in safe and secure condition from the time of seizure till their receipt at the FSL. Needless to say, for the FSL report to be admitted in evidence, the prosecution would have to establish, by credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody essential to establish the integrity and sanctity of the samples. Additionally, the procedural safeguard provided under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is also a relevant factor while evaluating whether the prescribed procedure was duly followed and, if not, the effect of such non-compliance on the finding of guilt recorded against the accused-appellants.
Paragraph 34This Court, in Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal[^10], held that the failure to draw representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate and the absence of a certified inventory, in breach of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, constituted lapses striking at the very root of the prosecution case and rendered the integrity of the seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful. Consequently, the FSL report was held unfit to be read in evidence. Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh[^11], this Court affirmed an acquittal where the prosecution had failed to account for the custody of the seized samples between their alleged dispatch and their receipt at the laboratory. The Court emphasised that, having regard to the severity of the penalties prescribed under the NDPS Act, the questions as to how and where the samples were stored and when they were dispatched and received at the laboratory assume considerable significance. The Court held that an unexplained gap in the custody of the samples, compromises their sanctity and casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case. These decisions, therefore, underscore that the prosecution must establish the integrity of the sampling process as well as an unbroken chain of custody of the samples before the FSL report can safely be relied upon.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India