Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Dhani Ram Gond, S/o. Babu Lal Gond – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15-11-2017 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Dhamtari in Special Criminal Case No.5/2010, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) for having been found in possession of 120 Kgs. of Ganja along with co-accused Rajendra Singh Thakur @ Abhay (now convicted) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years & pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for five years.
2. Co-accused Rajendra Singh Thakur @ Abhay was tried for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act in Special Criminal Case No.5/2010 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari and by judgment dated 24-3-2011, he has been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years & pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous impri
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible without corroboration, leading to quashing of proceedings against the accused.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.
Confessional statements of co-accused, lacking corroborative evidence, cannot establish guilt against another accused under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings.
Possession under the NDPS Act requires substantive evidence directly linking the accused to the contraband, with inadmissibility of confessions made to officers under specific provisions of the Evide....
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Confessional statements to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, and bail must be granted if there is insufficient evidence against the accused.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering them inadmissible for prosecution purposes, thus affecting the grounds for bail.
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
