Two days before their 10 year jail term in a drugs case was completed, two foreigners, including a woman, were ordered to be "forthwith" released by the Delhi High Court as there were several inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru noted that there were inconsistencies in the witness statements with regard to seizure of the banned substance -- 1.78 kilograms of cocaine -- questioning and search of the two accused and various other aspects of the case.
The high court in its order of May 13 observed that only two days were left in their 10 year jail term and directed they be released "forthwith".
The woman, Laya -- a 50 year old Philippine national -- had arrived here on May 14, 2010, and the other was a Nigerian national Okafor, who was already residing here.
Both of them were arrested on May 15, 2010 and were in prison since then.
The order came on their appeals challenging their conviction and 10 year jail term awarded by a trial court in 2015 for offences committed under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for conspiracy to import banned contraband into the country.
According to the prosecution, the woman had met the Nigerian the last time she was here and thereafter, agreed to bring in the contraband for him who had offered to pay her USD 2,000.
The court, however, said no evidence has been brought on record to show there was any connection between them and therefore, "the prosecution has failed to establish that there was any meeting of minds between" the two.
'In view of the above, this Court is unable to sustain the conviction of Okafor (Nigerian). He is, accordingly, acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted. Accordingly, Laya (Philippine national) is also acquitted of committing an offence under the NDPS Act and her conviction is set aside," the judge said.
The high court further said, "...there is considerable doubt as to the manner in which the contraband was recovered and the chain of custody of samples has also not been established. The possibility of tampering with the same also cannot be ruled out.
"Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the appellants are acquitted.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
