Insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt leads to acquittal in drug-related offences.

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the sole accused in S.C.No827/2012 on the file of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 55 (g) and 8(1) read with Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act , 1 of 1077 (the Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 24/06/2005 at 05:30 p.m., the accused along with another person was found engaged in distilling arrack in the lean-to the house of one Vellara Nirappel Sahadevan situated in Thekkumala. Hence, the accused as per the final report/charge sheet is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

3. Crime no.17/2005, Excise range, Ranni, that is Ext.P6 crime and occurrence report was registered by PW5, the Preventive officer, to whom the accused, the contraband articles and the documents were handed over by PW4, the Detecting officer. PW6, Excise Inspector, Ranni, conducted the investigation and submitted the final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections by the accused.

4. During the course of the investigation itself, the first accused was reported to be no more and hence charge sheet was filed against the present accused alone before the jurisdictional magistrate, who after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta. The case was taken on file as S.C.No827/2012 and thereafter made over to the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta, for trial and disposal.

5. The trial court framed a charge under Section 8 (1) read with Section 8 (2) and 55(g) of the Act, which was framed, read over and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 and CW1 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10, Ext.C1 and MO.1 to MO.8 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused person.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 55 (g) and 8(1) read with Section 8 (2) of the Act and hence sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of ₹1 lakh and in default to simple imprisonment for 15 days. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused person by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The prosecution case is that on 24/06/2005, PW4 the Excise Sub Inspector, Ranni, was on patrol duty along with PW3 and when they reached the place called 'Thekkumala', they got information that two persons were brewing arrack in the house of Nirappel Sahadevan. The said house was under lock and key as Sahadevan had been admitted in the hospital in a serious condition. Taking advantage of the absence of the owner, the accused persons were alleged to have trespassed into the lean -to situated at the back of the resid