2011 (1) TMI 1324 - SC - Customs

Whether Appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt for in the opinion of the High Court the charge framed against the appellant had been satisfactorily proved? Whether the appellants could be given the benefit of doubt having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction under the NDPS Act.
2. Validity of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
3. Reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
4. Entitlement to the benefit of doubt for the accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the conviction under the NDPS Act:
The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 8(c), read with Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court upheld their conviction and sentences, which ranged from ten to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment with fines. The prosecution's case was based on secret information leading to the interception of a truck and subsequent searches, resulting in the seizure of psychotropic drugs and heroin. The Trial Court and the High Court both found the recovery of narcotic substances from the truck and the residence of one of the appellants to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Validity of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The appellants contended that their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded under duress. However, the Trial Court and the High Court concluded that the statements made by all the accused, except one, were voluntary and reliable. The courts found no reason to disbelieve the evidence provided by the intelligence officer and other documentary evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

3. Reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution:
The prosecution examined eight witnesses and relied on several documents to establish its case. The defense argued that the evidence suffered from serious contradictions and that the statements recorded under Section 67 were not credible. Despite these contentions, both the Trial Court and the High Court found the evidence to be consistent and credible. The High Court specifically noted that the recovery of narcotic substances from the truck and the residence of one appellant was satisfactorily proven, rejecting the defense's claims of evidence being planted.

4. Entitlement to the benefit of doubt for the accused:
The appellants argued that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that they should be given the benefit of doubt. The courts, however, held that the degree of proof required is a high degree of probability, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. The courts emphasized that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt should not lead to the acquittal of the guilty based on fanciful possibilities. The High Court affirmed that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellants' assertions of being unaware of the contraband were not credible.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no error or perversity in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The evidence on record, including the recovery of narcotic substances and the voluntary statements of the accused, supported the convictions. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the sentences imposed by the lower courts.