The State Of Tripura vs Narayan Das
2025 Latest Caselaw 1364 Tri

Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs Narayan Das on 18 November, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                        Crl.A.No.23 of 2025


The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura.
                                                     .... Appellant.

                                Versus
Narayan Das,
S/O Lt. Hiralal Das
Resident of Khashchowmani,
P.S.- Melaghar, District- Sepahijala
                                                .......Respondent.

For Appellant(s)            :   Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.,
                                Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
For Respondent(s)           :   Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Adv,
                                Ms. Ayesha Saha Hirawat, Adv.
Date of Hearing             :   04.11.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order :            18.11.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting                   :   YES
         HON'BLE. JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                            Judgment & Order


[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]

             Leave granted.

02. This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment

and order of acquittal dated 26.03.2024 delivered by Learned

Special Judge, NDPS in connection with case No.Special

(NDPS) 42 of 2019.

03. Heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on

behalf of the appellant and also heard Learned Senior Counsel,

Mr. S. Sarkar assisted by Learned Counsel, Ms. Ayesha S.

Hirawat appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused.

04. Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. first of all

drawn the attention of the Court that on the basis of an FIR

laid by Inspector Anupam Das, O/C Melaghar P.S. alleging inter

alia that on 02.10.2018 at about 2235 hours on the basis of

secret information, the informant along with other staff entered

into the house of the accused and conducted raid and search

and in course of search from the cattle shed of the accused 55

kg of dry ganja was recovered and accordingly, the case was

registered and the I.O. conducted investigation.

During investigation, the accused was arrested and

was produced before the Court and on completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and accordingly,

Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused under

Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of NDPS Act and to substantiate the

charge prosecution has adduced in total 7 nos. of witnesses

and on conclusion of trial, Learned Special Judge acquitted the

accused from the charge of this case.

05. It was submitted by Learned P.P. that Learned Trial

Court at the time of delivery of judgment determined following

points for decision of this case:

"(1) Whether there was compliance of section 42(2) of NDPS Act this case?

(2) Whether chain of possession of contraband has been proved ?

(3) Whether search and seizure of contraband has been proved through independent witnesses?"

06. Learned P.P. further drawn the attention of the

Court that Learned Trial Court at the time of delivery of

judgment based upon the evidence on record of PWs-2, 4 & 5

came to the observation that Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was

duly complied with but regarding determination of point Nos.2

and 3, came to the observation that the prosecution has failed

to prove the chain of possession of contraband items as well as

the search and seizure of contraband items from the

possession of the accused in-accordance-with law. Thus, came

to an erroneous finding and acquitted the accused.

In this regard, Learned P.P. drawn the attention of

the Court referring one citation of the Hon'ble Supremem Court

in Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattishgarh reported in

(2020) 9 SCC 627, wherein in para No.12 Hon'ble the Apex

Court observed as under:

"12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non- corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case [State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar, (2018) 13 SCC 808]"

Referring the same, Learned P.P. drawn the

attention of the Court that in view of the principle of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of evidence on

record of independent public witnesses also, there is scope for

convicting the accused in a case. He further stated that all the

witnesses of the prosecution excepting PW.3 and PW.7 very

categorically stated that on the alleged day contraband items

were seized from the residence of the accused and in support

of that the accused could not show any valid documents. But

the Learned Trial Court came to the observation that the

prosecution has failed to prove search and seizure of the

contraband items through seizure witnesses and furthermore,

Learned Trial Court came to the observation that although

PWs-1 and 4 in their evidence stated that after search and

seizure they apprehend the accused and brought to P.S. but

they failed to state in their evidence what happened with the

seized contraband items and where it was kept and the

prosecution failed to produce the I.O. inspite of following

opportunity and thus, came to the observation that prosecution

has failed to prove chain of possession of contraband items

which according to Learned P.P. was total non-application of

mind on the part of Learned Trial Court. So, Learned P.P. in

summing up urged before the Court to set aside the judgment

of the Learned Trial Court and to remand back the matter to

the Learned Court below with a direction to call upon the

witnesses and allow the prosecution to prove the documents

afresh and for delivery to deliver a fresh judgment.

07. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.

Sarkar appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused drawn

the attention of the Court that the Learned Trial Court after

considering the oral/documentary evidence on record rightly

delivered the judgment and there was no infirmity in the

judgment of the Learned Trial Court and furthermore, there

was non-compliance of the provision of Section 42(2) of NDPS

Act although Learned Trial Court came to the observation that

Section 42(2) was duly complied with by the prosecution but

not an independent witnesses supported the seizure of

contraband items from the possession of the accused, so, there

is was no infirmity in the judgment of the Learned Trial Court

and urged for dismissal of the appeal filed by the prosecution.

08. We have heard both the sides at length and perused

the record of the Learned Trial Court. In this case to

substantiate the charge prosecution before the Learned Trial

Court out of 9 nos. of witnesses has adduced in total 7 nos. of

witnesses but the I.O. could not be examined. From the

evidence on record, it appears that Learned Trial Court at the

time of delivery of judgment based upon the evidence of PW-3

and PW-7 came to the observation that the Seizure of

contraband items and the chain of seizure of contraband items

could not be proved by the prosecution but came to the

observation that Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was duly complied

with.

09. PWs-1, 2, 4 & 5 very categorically stated about the

prosecution case.

     JUDGE                                              JUDGE




MOUMITA                   Digitally signed by MOUMITA
                          DATTA

DATTA                     Date: 2025.11.19 10:47:58
                          +05'30'
Purnita