Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Lakshaman Sharma, Son of Hira Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, through Zonal Director, Narcotic Control Bureau, Patna, Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2983 Of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2024
N.D.P.S. Act - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29, 50, 67 - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly focusing on the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to officers acting as police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessions for conviction. The reliance on such statements led to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable due to lack of admissible evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Lakshaman Sharma, was convicted for offenses under the NDPS Act based on the recovery of 4.500 kg of charas from a co-accused, Sanjay Mahto Kewat, who was apprehended earlier. The prosecution's case relied heavily on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were deemed confessional in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in relying on the inadmissible statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the crime, as the independent witnesses contradicted the prosecution's claims.
Issues: Whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible as evidence for conviction, and whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessional statements made to officers acting as police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The reliance on such statements for conviction was improper, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement in the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, declaring the judgment of the trial court as illegal and unsustainable. The appellant was ordered to be released from custody.
JUDGMENT :
(Shailendra Singh, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing for UOI through NCB.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2022 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 63/2021 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 23/2018 (Special Case No. 18/2018), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 29 of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and both the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently by the convicting trial court.
3. The substance of prosecution’s allegation is that on 02.05.2018, Mr. Sunil Dubey, Assitant Director of Narcotics Control Bureau (in short NCB), Patna got the information that one person had been apprehended with 4.500 kg of charas by SSB officials, then a team consisting of the officials of NCB was constituted with intelligence officials A. K. Prasad, Ashok Kumar Rai and one constable Manoj Kumar Yadav who were part of the team and on the same day at about 5 P.M. the team with relevant materials such as drug detection kit, etc. started their journey and reached at Enerva where the 47th SSB Battalion was deputed and thereafter, the NCB team met Sr. Raj Kumar Kumawat, Assistant Commandant of SSB and recovered the prohibited seized material and the assistant commandant gave all the information of search and seizure of the seized contraband through his letter dated 03.05.2018 which had been sent to NCB. As per his letter, the office of SSB got the information that one person was coming from Nepal country and would enter into the territory of India with narcotic material charas and then a Quick Response Team (QRT) was constituted by SSB officials which was led by Sr. Raj Kumar Kumawat and the said team saw two persons coming from Nepal side near border pillar no. 413 then the SSB officials asked them to stop but they started fleeing and then one of them was apprehended on chase, who disclosed his name as Sanjay Mahto Kewat and the other person managed to escape and thereafter, a notice under section 50 of NDPS Act was given to Sanjay Mahto Kewat and on that, he gave his consent to be searched before the SSB officials and thereafter, in the presence of two independent persons namely Prem Kumar Yadav and Sushil Yadav a bag, he was carrying at the time of arrest, was searched from which 4.500 kg charas like material was recovered and thereafter, the seized contraband along with the apprehended accused Sanjay Mahto Kewat was handed over to NCB officials. It was further alleged that nine (9) packets wrapped with brown colour tape kept in a plastic bag were recovered from the possession of the apprehended accused and thereafter, some small quantity was taken as a sample from each packet that was examined by the help of detection kit and then the seized material was confirmed as charas and the total weight of the seized contraband was measured as 4.500 kg. After that, the packets and samples were kept in different packets which were sealed in the presence of two independent witnesses Prem Kumar Yadav and Sushil Yadav and all these proceedings were completed on 03.05.2018 at the spot. It was further revealed that the statements of the independent witness
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible if made to officers acting as police officers, as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be used to convict ....
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Failures and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including unexplained delay in informing the police, contradictions in the evidence of prosecution's witnesses, and failure to produce the seiz....
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
Seizure of Heroin – Process of drawing of samples has to be in presence and under supervision of Magistrate and entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
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
