Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3631
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU
Peter @ Peter Prakasam & Another
Versus
State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai
Criminal Appeal No.785 of 2009
Decided on : 12-08-2011
For the Appellants:T.K. Sampath, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor.
A confession made by an accused person to a police officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence against the accused, provided that the confession is voluntary and was not made in police custody.
Headnote:
NDPS ACT - [SECTION 8(C) R/W 21(C), 25, 28, 29] - [SECTION 8(C) R/W 28, 29] - [SECTION 42] - [SECTION 67] - [SECTION 53] - [SECTION 50] - [SECTION 26] - [SECTION 27] - [SECTION 24] - [SECTION 30] - [SECTION 313] - [SECTION 100] - [ARTICLE 20(3)] - CONFESSION - VOLUNTARY - RETRACTED - CORROBORATION - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - POLICE CUSTODY - SUMMONS - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - DISCRETION OF COURT - QUANTUM OF SENTENCE - DEFAULT SENTENCE - EVIDENCE ACT - CUSTOMS ACT - RELEVANCY - SECTION 26 - SECTION 27 - SECTION 24 - SECTION 30 - SECTION 313 - SECTION 100 - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SECTION 42 - SECTION 67 - SECTION 53 - SECTION 50 - SECTION 26 - SECTION 27 - SECTION 24 - SECTION 30 - SECTION 313 - SECTION 100 - ARTICLE 20(3).
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under various sections of the NDPS Act for possessing and transporting heroin. The prosecution's case was that the appellants were part of a conspiracy to smuggle heroin from India to Sri Lanka. On 02.12.2003, a lorry carrying 10.420 kgs of heroin was intercepted at a place opposite to the Block Development Office on the G.S.T. Road, Katangolathur, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The first appellant was found in the lorry along with the driver and the cleaner. The second appellant was arrested later on the basis of the first appellant's confession. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that the heroin was planted on them by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. The court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the police officers who intercepted the lorry and seized the heroin, as well as the confessions made by the appellants. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the confessions were not voluntary and that they were not corroborated by independent evidence. The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the police had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. by not procuring independent witnesses to the search and seizure of the heroin. The court held that the police were not required to procure independent witnesses in this case because they had acted on specific information and had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellants were involved in a crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessions made by the appellants were voluntary and admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. 3. Whether the police had complied with the provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. by procuring independent witnesses to the search and seizure of the heroin.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confessions made by the appellants were voluntary and admissible in evidence. The court relied on the fact that the appellants had been given a summons to appear before the police and that they had made the confessions in the presence of police officers who were not involved in the investigation of the case. The court also noted that the appellants had not been subjected to any coercion or threats. 2. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. The court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the police officers who intercepted the lorry and seized the heroin, as well as the confessions made by the appellants. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the confessions were not voluntary and that they were not corroborated by independent evidence. 3. The court held that the police were not required to procure independent witnesses to the search and seizure of the heroin because they had acted on specific information and had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellants were involved in a crime.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
1. The appellants are the accused in C.C.No.126 of 2004, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under the NDPS Act cases at Chennai. The first appellant/A1 stood charged for the offenses under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 25, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as amended by Act 9/2001. The second appellant/A2 stood charged for the offenses under Sections 8(c) r/w 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as amended by Act 9/2001. The Trial Court convicted the first appellant under Sections 8 (c) r/w 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act however acquitted the first appellant from the charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 25 and 28 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court convicted the second appellant under Section 8(c) r/w 29 of NDPS Act however acquitted the second appellant from the charges under Section 8(c) r/w 28 of the NDPS Act. The first appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.one lakh in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offenses under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the NDPS Act and to undergo R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.one lakh in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offenses under Section 8(c) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act. The second appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.one lakh in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offenses under Section 8(c) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) In this case there are totally four accused involved. Two accused by name Mujahid and Mohammed Bhai are absconding. The case against these appellants alone was tried in C.C.No.126 of 2004. According to the case of the prosecution, these two appellants along with the absconding accused hatched a criminal conspiracy at Thoothukudi, Salem, Chennai and Colombo during the year 2003 to procure, possess and transport heroin.
(ii) Out the said conspiracy, heroin weighing 10.420 kgs was carried in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-25-A-9207 on 02.12.2003. The said lorry was intercepted at a place opposite to the Block Development Office on the G.S.T. Road, Katangolathur, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District on 02.12.2003 at 11.00 a.m. The first accused besides the driver and the cleaner of the lorry was found in the lorry.
(iii) According to the case of the prosecution, the first accused was found in constructive possession of the said heroin. After following the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act and Cr.P.C, the same was seized. On the confession of the first accused, the second accused was arrested who in turn has also given a confession admitting his guilt.
(iv) On these allegations, the Intelligence Officer, NCB (South Zonal Unit), Chennai filed a private complaint before the Special Court, upon which cognizance was taken. Based on the same, the charges as referred to in the first paragraph of this judgment were framed. The accused denied the charges. As many as nine witnesses were examined and 54 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.54 besides 12 material objects.
3. The brief of the prosecution case as spoken to by the witnesses can be summarized as follows:
(i) P.W.3, Mr.A.Sendhil Murugan, during the relevant time, was working as Intelligence Officer attached to Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai. On 01.12.2003, at 6.00 p.m. when he was in his office, he received a telephonic call over which the caller told him that one Mujahid a native of Srilanka was involved in smuggling Narcotic Drugs from India to Srilanka. He further told that 10 kgs of heroin was to be smuggled from North India through a person by name Francis of Thoothukudi. He further informed that Mr.Francis had made arrangements along with his co-brother's son by name Peter for the said purpose. As per the programme, Mr.Peter was to carry 10 kgs of heroin in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-25-A-9207 from
