2012 (3) TMI 430 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant and to let him undergo the long sentence given to him by the courts below? Whether the appellant be given benefit of doubt and the order of his conviction and sentence be set aside?

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on recovery of poppy husk, admissibility of disclosure statement, inherent improbability of prosecution case, examination of witnesses, benefit of doubt.

Analysis:
The appellant was convicted under section 15 of the NDPS Act based on the recovery of three bags of poppy husk from his residence. The prosecution's case rested on the appellant's disclosure statement leading to the recovery. However, the Supreme Court noted the inherent improbability of the prosecution case. Despite finding nothing incriminating in the appellant's kirana shop, the prosecution claimed the appellant voluntarily disclosed the hidden poppy husk at his residence, raising doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's narrative.

The Court refrained from delving into the admissibility of the disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act. While acknowledging the legal complexities surrounding the statement's admissibility, the Court focused on the unnatural circumstances of the recovery. The Court expressed skepticism towards the prosecution's version of events, emphasizing the implausibility of the appellant leading the police to the hidden narcotics without any prior incriminating evidence.

A crucial aspect highlighted by the Court was the non-examination of the Sarpanch of the village as a witness. Despite holding a responsible position, the Sarpanch was not presented by the prosecution due to allegations of being won over. The Court criticized this decision, stating that the Sarpanch should have been summoned to testify, allowing the court to determine any influence by the accused. This omission raised concerns about the prosecution's handling of key witnesses in the case.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court deemed it unsafe to uphold the appellant's conviction and lengthy sentence. Citing the benefit of doubt, the Court overturned the lower courts' decisions, setting aside the appellant's conviction and directing his release from jail unless required in another case. The Court's decision to grant the appellant the benefit of doubt stemmed from the perceived inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the prosecution's case, leading to the reversal of the conviction and sentence.