The court affirmed that minor contradictions in prosecution testimony do not undermine a conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the reliability of police witness statements.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence against the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum- Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ranchi in NDPS Case No. 15 of 2020 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.11 of 2020), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

Facts:

2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be referred herein reads as under:

As per the case, on 15.03.2020 at about 12:20 p.m., Chandra Shekhar Azad, Officer in Charge Tamar P.S. was informed by the SSP Ranchi about transportation of opium from Radgaon to Tata by Safari bearing no. WB-06-B-0616 and it was also informed that a team headed by Rural SP Ranchi was formed for conducting raid. Then after lodging a sanha, the officer-in-charge along with a police party proceeded for the spot and reached at Raidih More at about 01:50 p.m. The team of Rural SP Ranchi too reached there. The entire police team reached near Radgaon Madarasa at about 03:30 p.m. A vehicle bearing no. WB-06-B-0616 was seen going from RAdgaon towards Tata which was chased and caught near a bridge before Tikar More, at NH-33. The driver tried to escape but was caught by the police team. He disclosed his name as Shish Mahmood. He was asked about search upon which he became ready for the search of his vehicle in presence of Magistrate. As it was a lonely place and no independent witness was there hence in presence of two members of police team named Uma Shankar Singh and Ratan Ravidas, following the due procedure, the SDPO Bundu Ajay Kumar, as Magistrate, searched the said vehicle, in which opium and two small electronic weighing machines, kept in a white colored bag, upon which “HARING ELEMENTS” was written, was found in the back seat of the vehicle. From the person of Shish Mahmood, a black colored Redmi mobile phone and cash of Rs.15000 were recovered. He failed to produce any paper regarding the said opium which was found 7.5 kg in weight. All the recovered articles were seized, a seizure list was prepared and Shish Mahmood was arrested. On the self statement of Chandra Shekhar Azad, Officer in Charge Tamar P.S., the FIR was lodged under Section 17/18 of NDPS Act against Shish Mahmood.

The appellant was produced before the court on 16.03.2020 and he was remanded to custody. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted against him under Section 17/18 of NDPS Act and cognizance has been taken on 12.06.2020.

During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses named in the charge sheet and later on, the chare has been amended and a fresh charge has been framed under Section 17(c)/18(b) of NDPS Act.

After conclusion of the trial, the trial court observed that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge levelled against the appellant under Section 17(c) NDPS Act but the charge under Section 18(b) has been found to be proved and hence, the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 18(b) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implication in this case as he has committed no offence.

4. It has been contended by referring to paragraph no.1 of the testimony of P.W.-2 wherein he has deposed that the opium was recovered from the dikki of the car and not from the back seat as also he didn’t remember the colour of the bag.

5. It has further been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.-3 wherein he has deposed that the seizure list was pre