Supreme Court Acquits Woman in NDPS Case Due to Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Identity
In a significant judgment delivered on April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India acquitted K. Shikha Barman in a narcotics case, highlighting serious lapses in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the identity of the accused. The case involved allegations under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The case originated from an incident on March 4, 2016, when police received information about individuals carrying ganja in a WagonR car in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, five persons – three men and two women named Seema Choudhari and Preeti – were found in the vehicle with 38.200 kgs of ganja.
Key Arguments from the Appellant (K. Shikha Barman):
The appellant’s counsel argued that “there is no evidence adduced at the time of the final hearing to show that the present appellant was Seema Choudhari who was caught sitting in WagonR car and both the High Court and Special Court have erroneously relied upon the order dated 6th September 2016 passed on the application for grant of bail.” The counsel emphasized that “only a summary inquiry was held at that time without oral evidence being adduced by the parties.”
The appellant’s case was that the actual accused was Seema Choudhari, who was released, while the appellant, who was begging on the road, was falsely implicated. This crucial identity question became the central issue in the appeal.
Key Arguments from the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):
The State’s counsel relied on the order dated September 6, 2016, which had concluded that Seema Choudhari and Shikha Barman were the same person. The counsel submitted that “the findings are based on documents such as the Aadhar card” and that “the said order was not challenged by the appellant and hence, has become final.”
The Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and found several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case:
“The burden was on the prosecution to prove that the present appellant was found sitting in a WagonR car on 4th March 2016, from which contraband was recovered. Therefore, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused Seema Choudhari, as described in all documents, including documents of seizure, arrest memo, etc., is the present appellant.”
The Court noted that all contemporaneous documents – the FIR, medical examination memo, seizure memo, arrest memo – mentioned only Seema Choudhari as the accused. The arrest memo specifically recorded her age as 17 years. Crucially, the Court observed that “in none of the documents, produced along with the charge sheet, K. Shikha Barman was mentioned as an accused.”
The testimony of PW-5, the investigating officer, proved particularly damaging to the prosecution’s case. The Court highlighted that:
“PW-5, in her examination-in-chief, in paragraph 12 has stated thus: ‘When we reached Footatal Ground, Hanumantal, there were five people sitting in a black colored WagonR vehicle CG 010/F 5366 in the ground in front of tank of Police Station, among them three were boys and two women, the name of the women were Seema and Preeti. Both the accused have been identified by witnesses in the court.'”
Even more significantly, the Court noted PW-5’s admission that:
“It is correct that in the diary number 3 also it is written that Mo. Mehboob, Ashok Sen, Pappu Chakrawarti, Preeti Choudhary, Seema Choudhary were reported to be sitting. It is correct that information about Shikha Barman’ presence was not recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha.”
The Court further observed that “in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not put to the appellant that she is the same person as Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on 4th March 2016. Therefore, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to deal with the prosecution case. This causes prejudice to her.”
Court’s Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that “the prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that the appellant is Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on 4th March 2016” and that “the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment directed that “if the appellant is still in prison, she shall be forthwith set at liberty.”
This judgment underscores the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, including establishing the identity of the accused with certainty. The Court’s meticulous examination of the documentary evidence and witness testimony serves as an important reminder of the standards required for conviction in criminal cases.
Petitioner Name: K. Shikha Barman.Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.Judgment By: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.Place Of Incident: Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.Judgment Date: 16-04-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: k.-shikha-barman-vs-state-of-madhya-prad-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
