IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY
Toofani Ram, Son of Vishwanath Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.406 of 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of prosecution case and evidence presentation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. trial court's findings on prosecution evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments presented by appellants' counsel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. state's defense of the trial court's judgment. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. court's analysis of procedural compliance in evidence handling. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. final decision on the inability to sustain conviction. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 7. outcome of the appeal and order for acquittal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Trial No. 30 of 2020 arising out of Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 489 of 2020.
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo one year imprisonment.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the written application of the informant (PW-1). In his written application (Exhibit ‘2’), the informant has alleged that he got a secret information on 18.12.2020 at 10:10 AM that a big consignment of illicit ganja is likely to come from Gopalganj side. In this regard, he recorded his Sanha bearing No. 494 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020 and gave information to the Senior Police Officers and the nearest Magistrate, who is the Anchaladhikari, Kuchaikote. The Anchalaadhikari was asked to come to the police station. On the direction of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, the informant (PW-1) along with Sub-Inspector Shankar Paswan and the force of the Reserve Bal, Hawaldar Ramkumar Singh, Sipahi Deepak Kumar, Sipahi Lalu Kumar constituted a raiding team and they along with Anchaladhikari reached Balthari Check Post at NH-28. It is further alleged that after reaching Balthari Check Post, checking of the vehicles coming from Gopalganj started and in course of conducting the check at the Check Post, he came across a silver coloured Honda City Car coming from Gopalganj side bearing registration number UP-16-N-1820. The said car was stopped, the driver and another person who was in the car tried to flee away but they were caught and on asking, they disclosed their names as (1) Toofani Ram and (2) Ramkripal Yadav. On seeing the police action, people from the neighbouring place had assembled and he took two independent witnesses, namely, (1) Godan Shah and (2) Sandeep Basfor who agreed to become seizure list witnesses. Upon search of the vehicle, from the dickey of the car, the informant found 16 packets in plastic polythene, there were brown coloured substances in the packets which smell like ganja. It is alleged that the accused persons said that the substance is ganja which they were concealing in the dickey of the car and it belongs to Toofani Ram. Both the apprehended accused were searched and from both of them one mobile each was recovered.
The informant has further alleged that at the place of seizure itself, the weighing machine was called for from the police station and the 16 seized packets were weighed, they were of total 1.30 quintal. At the place of occurrence itself, informant had prepared two samples in two boxes (dibbas) of 25 grams each which were sealed also. All the above articles were seized and seizure list was prepared on which both the independent witn
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, where compliance with mandatory procedures is crucial.
Recovery of Ganja – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of trial.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for search and seizure under the NDPS Act renders the prosecution's case doubtful, leading to the reversal of conviction.
Confession of accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act.
Prosecution must adhere to strict evidential procedures in NDPS Act cases; failure undermines the conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in evidence and chain of custody led to acquittal.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.