Back
SANJAY DHAR
Mohammad Ayoub Wani – Appellant
Versus
State Of J. & K. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant, Mohammad Ayoub Wani, has challenged judgement dated 27.01.2014, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby appellant along with other co-accused has been convicted for offences under Section 20/28/29 of the NDPS Act. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 13.02.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, whereby appellant, in proof of aforesaid offences, has been sentenced to under a rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2008, the police of Police Station, CIK, Srinagar, received an information from reliable sources that the appellant along with co-accused Mohammad Shakoor Khatana, Mohammad Imran Bhat and Feroz Ahmad Lone, under a well-knit conspiracy, are in the process of smuggling a huge quantity of Charas which they have concealed in the body of the vehicle (Tavera) bearing registration No.MH02N-7852 to some place out of State. As per the information, the Charas was proposed to be smuggled by the a
Confessional statements made before a police officer are inadmissible in evidence, and there must be legally admissible evidence to establish guilt.
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.
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.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
The need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
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
