Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Dilip Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Son of Ishwari Prasad @ Ishwari Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No.12532 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant No.1 viz. Dilip Kumar @ Ravi Kumar under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS Act), Chatra in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.133 of 2022, arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No.24 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, the appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant No.1 that even if the testimony of the entire witness is taken into consideration in entirety, then also no case of narcotic substance will be said to be made out against the appellant No.1 in absence any recovery having been made from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant No.1.
3. It has been submitted by referring to the testimony of P.W.1 who had deposed in his testimony that no narcotic substance has been recovered, only Rs.9000/- cash
The absence of narcotic recovery from the appellant's possession creates reasonable doubt, justifying the suspension of the sentence.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act invalidates seizure and conviction.
A conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act requires clear evidence of possession or involvement, which was not present in this case.
The location of contraband recovery outside a residence creates grounds for suspension of sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act when it raises questions about culpability.
Suspension of sentence requires clear demonstration of trial errors or reasonable doubts about conviction, which the applicant failed to establish.
Doubts in the prosecution's case regarding the seizure of contraband justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and the sufficiency of evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
Sentence can be suspended where accused has served major part of sentence and appeal is unlikely to be heard early.
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
