Mohali: A special court in Mohali has acquitted three accused, including Sachin Kumar, in a case involving the alleged recovery of 1 kg of heroin, observing that contradictions in the police officials’ statements created serious doubt in the prosecution case.Special court judge Hardip Singh held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu and other police officials, observing that the contradictions in the investigating officials’ evidence made the prosecution version difficult to rely on the prosecution version.Appearing on behalf of the accused, Advocate C S Bawa said that the court, while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, observed that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption drawn against them. “It further held that the doubts arising from the prosecution evidence led to the conclusion that the investigating agency had failed to place on record the entire evidence required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” said Bawa.The case pertained to the alleged seizure of 1 kg of heroin from the accused. During the trial, the prosecution relied substantially on the statements of police officials involved in the investigation and recovery proceedings. However, the defence questioned the consistency and credibility of their testimonies.After examining the evidence, the court found that the contradictions in the police witnesses’ statements raised a reasonable doubt about the prosecution story. The court reiterated that such doubt had to operate in favour of the accused.“Thus, doubts in the prosecution story takes this court to the conclusion that the investigating agency could not prove on record the entire evidence required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt,” the court observed.The court consequently acquitted all three accused of the charges framed against them.The statements of the accused were also recorded. The court directed that their bail and surety bonds would remain in force for six months per Section 437-A of the CrPC. On expiry of the six-month period, the bonds would stand discharged automatically.The court further directed that the case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after the limitation period for filing an appeal or revision expires.
