Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Krishan Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2017
Decided On : 21-04-2017
NDPS Act - Conviction Reversed - Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. It emphasized the requirement of strict proof from the prosecution, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, and highlighted the material contradictions that made the prosecution case highly doubtful. The court also pointed out the failure to account for contradictions in the evidence and the lack of careful scrutiny by the High Court, leading to the erroneous conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act based on the recovery of charas from him. The High Court reversed the acquittal by the Trial Court and convicted the appellant, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in convicting the appellant, emphasizing the material contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution and the lack of careful scrutiny by the High Court. It held that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the findings of the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court without pointing out any perversity in the order of the Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of strict proof from the prosecution, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, and highlighted the material contradictions in the evidence presented. It also pointed out the failure to account for contradictions in the evidence and the lack of careful scrutiny by the High Court, leading to the erroneous conviction of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02/08.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-State and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in NDPS Case No. 3 of 2011 and convicted the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short the "NDPS Act") and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Brief facts:
(a) On 27.11.2010, the Complainant-SHO Gurbachan Singh, (PW-6) along with ASI Rattan Chand, HC Tain Singh, and Constable Umesh Kumar, were on patrolling duty, allegedly at about 5.00 a.m. when they were present at Patarna bridge, where they had gone in government vehicle, a person was seen coming from Patarna side carrying rucksack on his back.
(b) On seeing the police party, he tried to run away. He was chased and apprehended. He disclosed his name as Krishan Chand and his bag was searched and found to have contained black substance in wicks and rounded shape which appeared to be that of charas.
(c) The recovered charas was weighed and found to be 7 kgs. The same was sealed in a parcel with seal H (9 seals), the impression of which was also taken separately on a piece of cloth. NCB form in triplicate was filled and recovered charas was taken into possession by preparing seizure memo. The accused was arrested. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station through Constable Umesh Kumar. The case property was deposited with the MHC.
(d) After following the due procedure, a case was registered under the NDPS Act the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.
(e) As evidence had been found against the accused to have committed the offence under the NDPS Act, after completion of investigation, he was sent up to face trial.
(f) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as six witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He explained that bag (Ex. P-2) did not belong to him and that no charas was recovered from him. He further stated to be innocent, who was falsely implicated. By way of defence, he examined two witnesses, namely, Narain Singh and Govind Singh.
(g) The Special Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, after hearing the parties and considering the materials placed before it, by way of an elaborate judgment, held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him.
(h) Challenging the same, the respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 347 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned order dated 02/08.09.2016, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The High Court convicted the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
(i) Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Anil Nag, learned counsel for the appellant accused and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
4. The only question which arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the findings of the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court without pointing out any perversity in the order of the Trial Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the impugned order passed by the High Court and contended that the High Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
