The Andhra Pradesh High Court while setting aside a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 held that when there is an unusual delay of 2.4 years in sending the evidence for forensic examination, the delay needs to be properly explained.
Brief Facts:
In this specific case, the petitioner was reportedly apprehended by the police under suspicion. During a night patrol, the accused was found carrying 6 gelatin sticks on foot. The police confiscated the gelatin sticks and subsequently arrested her. The charge brought against her was under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Sessions Judge, after trial, declared her guilty and issued a conviction. The current appeal seeks to contest this judgment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel argued that, based on the cross-examination of the witnesses, it is apparent that houses were present at a distance of 100 meters. The evidence does not indicate any efforts by the police to secure independent witnesses, and the testimony of the police party is flawed with significant weaknesses.
The counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the alleged liquid substance derived from the purported 6 gelatin sticks. There was a delay of 2 years and 4 months in sending the sample for chemical analysis, and the chain of custody for the sample was not proven. According to their own records, a different sample was sent for chemical analysis.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel argued that due to the absence of mediators and the seizure occurring during unconventional hours, the police had no alternative but to carry out the seizure and arrest under the pretext of police proceedings. According to their evidence, obtaining mediators was not feasible. The prosecution acquired proper sanction to prosecute the accused. The sample analyzed by the Forensic Science Laboratory was identified as a highly explosive substance. The learned Sessions Judge appropriately evaluated the evidence on record, and consequently, the appeal should be rejected.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that the 6 gelignite sticks seized from the accused/appellant were defused and preserved in 2003 but were only sent for forensic examination in 2005. A crucial point highlighted by the bench was that the S.I. who initially sought orders to defuse the gelatin in 2003 was different from his successor, who submitted the preserved gelatin for forensic inspection in 2005. Therefore, the bench emphasized the necessity of clearly establishing the chain of custody for the sample.
The court pointed out that in 2003, the S.I. recorded that the gelatin was defused after the court's orders in August 2003. However, the S.I. who submitted the material for the forensic report mentioned that the gelatin sticks were destroyed when the material was sent for forensic inspection in December 2005.
Additionally, the bench highlighted that during cross-examination, a police constable admitted to the presence of houses near the crime scene but couldn't explain why nobody was secured as a mediator.
Consequently, the court concurred with the accused/appellant, asserting that the prosecution's case, marked by the absence of mediators, changes in authority, and discrepancies in exhibit dates, "must crumble on its own."
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Learned Sessions Judge.
Case Title: Kola Mani vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2009
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. D. Ramaswamy Reddy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. N. Sravan Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
