2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH THURSDAY, THE 25 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 CRL.A NO. 1171 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2018 IN SC 62/2017 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
VIJAYAN S/O THAMI, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SUKAPURAM P O, VATTAMKULAM BHAGOM, KUTTIPALAM KARA, NADUVATTOM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the 1st accused in S.C(NDPS) No.62/2017 on the files of Special Judge for NDPS cases, Thodupuzha. As per the judgment passed therein the appellant along with the 2nd accused stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section20(b)(ii)B and Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
2. The prosecution case is that: on 29.07.2017 at 2.45 p.m, the accused persons were found in possession of 1.100/- kg of dried ganja while they were standing in a waiting shed on the side of Erumeli- Mukkada road in Maniamala village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences mentioned above. On the basis of the same Crime No.871/2017 was registered by Manimala Police Station. Thereafter investigation was conducted and final report submitted. In support of the prosecution case, they have examined PWs 1 to 8, marked Exts.P1 to P19 and material objects MO1 to MO7 were identified.
3. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating materials brought out by the prosecution were put to them. The accused denied the same and stated that the case itself was a falsely foisted against them at the instance of certain Police officials. It was pointed out that they were implicated due to a personal rivalry of Sub Inspector of Police, Changaramkulam named K.P.Manesh and Civil Police Officer Ramesh towards the first accused. According to them, on 12.02.2017, in connection with ‘Pooram’ festival in Edapal Naduvattom Kaladithara Manaliyar Kavu there was a procession at 6.30 p.m. When the said procession reached near the Kavu, the Civil Police Officer, Ramesh beat the people who participated in the procession which included small children. The 1st accused obstructed him in doing the same and the son of the 1st accused also protested. At that point of time, the said police officer tried to hit his son and the appellant herein caught hold of the hand of the said Remesh. In connection with the same, the Changaramkulam Police has registered crime No.41/2017 under Section 332 and 341 read with 34 IPC against the appellant and his children. Thereafter the appellant and his children filed an application for anticipatory bail in the said case before this Court and obtained bail. The aforesaid case is pending as C.C.No.239/2017. According to the appellant, this case was falsely foisted at the instance of the said police officer, as the appellant could get bail in the aforesaid case without getting arrested. It was further mentioned by the appellant that on 29.07.2017 he came to the place of occurrence in connection with the sale of 10 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.25/1 in Pampadumpara village which is under his ownership. The 2nd accused who was working in Gulf and was in his native place on leave at the relevant time, had agreed to purchase the said property. While they were standing in the Pampadumpara bus stop on 29.07.2017 at 10 a.m., Changaramkulam Sub Inspector of Police Sri.K.P.Manesh along with the said Civil Police Officer Ramesh and Manimala SHO, Vinod came there, took the appellant and the other accused in custody and later they were implicated in the case with serious offences. In support of the said version DW1 was examined by the appellant.
4. After considering all the materials, the Sessions Court arrived at the conclusion that both the accused are guilty of the offences and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs 50,000/- each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section
20(b) and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/- each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under section 29 of the Act. This appeal is filed challenging the said conviction and sentence.
5. Heard Sri.Sharan Shahier, learned