Memo Of Arrest Didn’t Mention Her Name As Accused: Supreme Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Woman Alleging False Implication
The Apex Court noted that all the contemporary documents, including the memo of arrest of the same date, did not mention the name of the appellant as the accused.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has quashed an NDPS case registered against a woman who alleged that she was not the same lady who was arrested on the day of the incident.
The Apex Court noted that all the contemporary documents, including the memo of arrest of the same date, did not mention the name of the appellant as the accused.
The appellant was arraigned as an accused along with three other accused persons in a case registered under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Noting that the appellant was named as K. Shikha Barman, the Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “Therefore, the prosecution’s evidence clearly shows that on 4th March 2016, one Seema Choudhari was found sitting with another accused in a WagonR car. All the contemporary documents, including the memo of arrest of the same date, do not mention the name of the appellant as the accused. The accused is described as Seema Choudhari.”
AOR Shekhar Prit Jha represented the Appellant while AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2016 when the police officials received information that some persons, including three men and two women, were carrying Ganja in a WagonR car and were trying to sell the contraband. On reaching the location, they found three men and two women sitting in the car. The women were Seema and Preeti. On search, bags containing Ganja weighing 38.2 kgs. were seized. Samples were drawn, and further procedure was followed. The accused were arrested. In the memo of arrest, one Seema Choudhari was shown as arrested, whose age was recorded as 17 years in the arrest memo.
The case as set up by the appellant was that the said Seema Choudhari was released, and the appellant, who was begging on the road, was caught and falsely implicated. While deciding the bail application filed by the appellant, an order was passed holding that the real name of Seema Choudhari is Shikha Barman. The bail application of the appellant was rejected with a finding that Seema Choudhari and Shikha Barman are the same.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, mentioned that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the present appellant was found sitting in a WagonR car on March 4, 2016, from which the 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., was the present appellant.“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”, it said.
As per the Bench, the prosecution had adduced no evidence to show that the appellant was Seema Choudhari, who was arrested on March 4, 2016. Thus, considering that the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Bench quashed the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court only insofar as the appellant (K. Shikha Barman) was concerned.
“The appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against her. If the appellant is still in prison, she shall be forthwith set at liberty”, it concluded.
Cause Title: K. Shikha Barman v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 497)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shekhar Prit Jha, Advocates Preeti Kumari, Tamanna Swami
Respondent: AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, GA Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates Shruti Verma, Aditya Chaudhary