Supreme Court Acquits Woman on Ground of Non-Proof of Identity in NDPS Seizure

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal against convictions under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising from a March 4, 2016 seizure of ganja from a WagonR vehicle in Jabalpur and a dispute over the accused’s identity. The appeal survived only insofar as the appellant, K. Shikha Barman, was concerned.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the trial and High Court judgments only insofar as they related to K. Shikha Barman, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that she was the person described in the contemporaneous records as “Seema Choudhary.” The Court noted that an earlier order of September 6, 2016, made during a bail proceeding, was a summary inquiry based on documents and “cannot be treated as a final adjudication” of identity because no oral evidence had been led at that stage. The Court further observed that the appellant was not confronted in the Section 313 CrPC examination with the specific case that she was the same person as Seema Choudhary, thereby causing prejudice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, the prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that the appellant is Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on 4th March 2016.” The bench directed that, if the appellant remained in custody, she shall be set at liberty forthwith.

Background

The prosecution case proceeded from information received by PW-5, Sub-Inspector Bhawna Tiwari, that five persons in a WagonR were carrying ganja for sale. On reaching the spot, police found three men and two women, named in the FIR and contemporaneous documents as Preeti and Seema Choudhary; 38.200 kgs of ganja were seized, samples were drawn and arrests followed. Arrest and seizure memos, the remand report and other documents consistently identified the female arrest as Seema Choudhary and recorded her age as 17 in the arrest memo, which led to an inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board that later communicated that her age appeared to be above 18.

The appellant contended that she was a different person who had been begging nearby and was wrongly implicated after the real accused, Seema Choudhary, was released. At an earlier stage, a Special Judge’s order dated September 6, 2016 — issued during consideration of a bail application — recorded findings, relying on documents and an inquiry report of the investigation officer, that Seema Choudhary and Shikha Barman were the same person. That order was not challenged and was treated by the prosecution and the trial court as determinative. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the bail-stage summary inquiry involved no oral evidence and therefore could not substitute for proof at trial.

The Supreme Court examined the documentary record and PW-5’s testimony. PW-5 had stated that the informant reported the names of those in the vehicle as Mehboob, Ashok Sen, Pappu Chakrawarti, Preeti Choudhary and Seema Choudhary and expressly acknowledged that “I did not get information about Shikha Barman sitting in the vehicle.” The Court held that reliance on the September 6 order for identity was impermissible because that order was a limited, document-based inquiry for bail; it was not a final adjudication and lacked oral evidence. The Court also found that the trial process had not put to the appellant the specific case that she was Seema Choudhary under Section 313 CrPC, thus depriving her of an opportunity to meet the charge. The High Court and trial court convictions were therefore quashed in respect of K. Shikha Barman and she was acquitted. If still detained, she was directed to be released forthwith.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2731-32 OF 2024 (2025 INSC 497) Case Title: K. Shikha Barman v. State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (name not specified) For the Respondent(s): Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh (name not specified)