The court found that the evidence regarding the recovery of the roll of bhang from the appellant's house was unsatisfactory and riddled with contradictions. The testimonies of the assistant chief, Mutunga, and the village elder were inconsistent on material aspects, including who possessed the bhang and how it was recovered. The principal state counsel did not support the conviction due to these contradictions. The court held that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction in light of the unreliable and conflicting prosecution evidence, and thus quashed the conviction and sentence.