Delhi police have been slammed for discrepancies in probing a drug trafficking case by a city court, which acquitted a man of the charges of carrying commercial quantity of smack.
Delhi police have been slammed for discrepancies in probing a drug trafficking case by a city court, which acquitted a man of the charges of carrying commercial quantity of smack.
Additional sessions judge Girish Kathpalia noted that the police might have used a fictitious person as public witness in the case, besides the sample quantity of alleged seized drug did not match with the claim of the police.
"It is a case where a specific person is joined in the raiding team but subsequently it is reported that such person does not exist and is conveniently dropped by prosecution as a witness.
"It cannot be ruled out that no such person was ever joined and police used a fictitious name in order to make the alleged raid convincing," the court said, acquitting Ram Lal of drug trafficking charge.
The police initially claimed to have sent 5 grams out of total recovery of 40 grams of smack for forensic examination, but could not explain before the court as the forensic lab said that it received 7.5 gram of the contraband.
"A very glaring discrepancy in the prosecution case that remains unexplained is weight of the sample drawn and sent to the FSL," the court said.
Ram Lal was arrested by police on March five, 2004 from a north Delhi locality for allegedly carrying commercial quantity of the contraband.
The court, in its judgement, expressed surprise on the procedural anomaly on the part of police stating that the seizure document contained the FIR number despite there being a provision for registration of the FIR only after preparing such paper.
It also considered a host of civil and criminal cases launched against the accused by the police saying, "it lends strong credence to the claim that the accused is falsely implicated in these cases at the behest of senior police officers."
The contention of the accused that he was framed up was buttressed as he referred to three cases against him in which he had already been exonerated by separate courts.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}