SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K.Ramakrishnan, J
K.Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
State through, The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Police Station, Thoothukudi District. – Respondent
CRL.A(MD).Nos.459 and 797 of 2023 | Crl.MP(MD)Nos.14252 and 14399 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.NA.Manimaran, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failures to comply with statutory procedures or provide corroborating evidence undermine convictions.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)

(C), 25, and 29(1) - Conviction and sentence under NDPS Act challenged - Prosecution failed to prove recovery of contraband, compliance with statutory procedures, and credibility of evidence - Non-examination of crucial witnesses created reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence presented. (Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 19, 21)

(B) Evidence - Sole witness testimony - The evidence of a single police officer is insufficient for conviction without corroboration, especially when there are inconsistencies and doubts raised during the trial. (Paras 15, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were accused of possessing 25.230 kg of ganja, convicted based on evidence from one police officer amidst procedural lapses and failures to examine independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution did not meet its burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt; hence, the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and if the conviction can be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the failure of the prosecution to comply with statutory procedures, credibility of evidence, and the necessity of corroborating witness testimonies in establishing guilt.

Result: Appeals allowed; the conviction and sentences set aside.

Table of Content
1. legal background of the case and appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellants/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.99 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act, Madurai, have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them on 31.05.2023, under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 .

2. Since the appellants in both the appeals were arrayed as accused in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed by way of this common judgment.

3.The brief facts of the case as follows:

On 15.08.2020, at about 08.45 a.m, the Sub-Inspector of police, Tiruchendur Police Station, P.W.1, received secret information about the smuggling of Ganja at Aavudaiyar Kulakkarai, Tiruchendur. P.W.1 reduced the same in writting under Ex.P.1 and submitted the same to his Superior Officer, P.W.2 and P.W.2 also permitted P.W.1 to proceed further in the case. Hence, P.W. 1 along with his team members went to the place of occurrence. The informant identified the persons and left the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 and his team found the first accused, who was riding a Pulsar Vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-92- C-8186 with two gunny bags and with the second accused as the pillion rider. They intercepted the appellants and introduced themselves as police officers and they were informed about their right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The accused consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found two gunny bags. They opened the bags and found 48 pockets of Ganja and the total weight was 25.230 kg. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took two samples from each packets (two samples 10 grams from each bag) and totally 96 samples S1 to S96 were taken and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.2 arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave voluntary confession and the same were recorded. Thereafter, P.W.2 brought the appellants to the police station and registered in Crime No.345 of 2020 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the NDPS Act under Ex.P.8. P.W.2 prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act and sent to his immediate superior. After that, P.W.2 remanded the accused along with contraband. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.99 of 2021. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4. The prosecution, to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and produced 145 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.145. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available against them. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examinationof the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellants from the charges under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and convicted them for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 , and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

7.1. The learned senior c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top