Supreme Court Clears Name of Woman Falsely Accused in Ganja Case – Judgement by Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

K. Shikha Barman, the appellant in a case brought under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was found not guilty by the Supreme Court of India thanks to a ruling that was both thorough and reasoned. The judgment was given on April 16, 2025, and it was part of Criminal Appeal Nos. 2731-32 of 2024.

Among the essential concepts of criminal justice that have been highlighted by the ruling, which was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, are the burden of proof, mistaken identification, and procedural fairness.

Historical Context of the Case

The investigation started on March 4, 2016, when Sub-Inspector Bhawna Tiwari (PW-5), who was stationed at the Hanumantal Police Station in Jabalpur at the time, got information regarding five people—three men and two women—carrying ganja in a WagonR vehicle. The cops found 38.2 kilograms of ganja and detained all five of the suspects as soon as they arrived at the scene.

Among the ladies, Preeti and a woman named Seema Choudhari were recognized. Seema Choudhari was included in all official records, including the First Information Report (FIR), the seizure note, and the arrest memo.

Notwithstanding this, the appellant, K. Shikha Barman, argued that she was not the lady who was apprehended at the site of the crime. She claims that she was not involved in the incident and that she was mistakenly replaced by Seema Choudhari after the latter was purportedly freed from jail.

Initially, at a bail process that took place on September 6, 2016, the Special Judge came to the conclusion that Shikha Barman and Seema Choudhari were the same individual. This conclusion was based only on summary papers, which included an Aadhar card and a review report from the police. Following the denial of the bail, the case was brought before a judge for trial.

Concerns that Came Up During the Appeal

One of the most important questions that was brought before the Supreme Court was whether or not the prosecution had presented any tangible evidence to demonstrate that the individual who was found guilty, K. Shikha Barman, was in fact the same individual as Seema Choudhari, who had been taken into custody during the raid.

The defense contended that the result from the bail hearing in 2016 could not be considered definitive, particularly given the fact that there was no oral evidence produced to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the identify of the accused.

In contrast, the prosecution placed a significant amount of weight on the previous ruling as well as some documents, but they did not introduce any new evidence over the course of the trial.

The Observations and Findings of the American Supreme Court

The Court paid close attention to all of the papers and the statements of the witnesses, particularly the statement made by the officer who was conducting the investigation, PW-5. In all contemporaneous records, including the First Information Report (FIR), medical referral, arrest note, and seizure memo,

it was discovered that the name that was entered was “Seema Choudhari,” and not “Shikha Barman.” It was also noted in these papers that Seema was 17 years old, which resulted in her being brought before the Juvenile Justice Board throughout the proceedings.

In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that there was no proof or documented evidence that connected the appellant to the individual who was apprehended on the scene. In point of fact, the officer in charge of the inquiry had certified that the name Shikha Barman was never found in the initial records, and that neither her signature nor her thumb imprint were found on any of the official documents that were made at the site.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the officer who was conducting the investigation stated, under cross-examination, that there was no lady called Shikha Barman discovered at the site, and that her identity was not documented in the police journal or any other evidence.

The court also took note of the fact that the prosecution did not even bother to mention to the appellant that she was the same person as Seema Choudhari in the statement that was made in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Her right to a fair defense was further hampered as a result of this malfunction in the procedure.

Legal Principles That Are Applied Here

Several legal concepts were highlighted by the case, including:

Putting the burden of proof on the prosecution: It is the job of the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person is who they claim to be. The accused is afforded this essential protection in the context of criminal proceedings.

Until a person’s guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, they are presumed to be innocent. The fact that the prosecution was unable to provide evidence to prove the identification meant that the accused had to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The Court reaffirmed that procedural protections cannot be circumvented, and it emphasized the importance of due process and fair trials. During the bail stage, the brief inquiry could not serve as a replacement for the full-fledged evidence that will be presented during the trial.

In the event that there is an allegation of mistaken identification, the courts are required to exercise caution and conduct a comprehensive investigation. There is a possibility that the wrong individual was charged in this instance, which led to the collapse of the entire case.

a decision and the ultimate order

In light of these facts, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that K. Shikha Barman was the same individual as Seema Choudhari, who was taken into custody using the WagonR vehicle.

Furthermore, as a consequence of this, the conviction that was handed down by the Special Court and then upheld by the High Court was overturned.

In the event that she was still being held in jail, the court ordered that she be freed without unnecessary delay. Her appeal was granted, putting an end to a time-consuming injustice that had been going on for a considerable amount of time.

In addition to ensuring that K. Shikha Barman received justice, this verdict also served to underline the constitutional safeguards that are essential for persons who are accused of charges in criminal trials.

A powerful message about the significance of fairness in the criminal justice system is sent by the Supreme Court’s refusal to take procedural shortcuts and its reliance on the presentation of real facts.

It serves as a reminder that identification, along with every other component of a criminal case, must be shown with accuracy and care, particularly when the penalties are as severe as a conviction under the National Defense Personnel Systems Act (NDPS Act).

About the Author

Legal Maestros

Editor

Author's website Author's posts