2013 (5) TMI 43 - HC - Customs

Offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act - appeleant acquitted of the charges under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac , each. - appellants were found in possession of 5.022 kg. of Heroin - Held that - Contradictions, discrepancies and improvements highlighted by counsel do not affect the core issue of recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of the accused. These do not go to the root of the case to throw away the otherwise unimpeachable testimony of official witnesses. Testimonies of official witnesses have to be considered at par with that of independent witnesses. Testimony of complainant was corroborated by confessional statements of the accused persons. It was further corroborated by recovery memo and other documents which had been prepared at the time of recovery and proved before the Trial Court. All the contentions raised by the appellants have been dealt with in the impugned judgment and no interference is called for. No merit in the appeals preferred by the appellants and the same are dismissed. Conviction and sentence of both the appellants are maintained.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 21(c) NDPS Act while acquitted of charges under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 21(c) NDPS Act:
The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that they were found in possession of 5.022 kg of Heroin meant for delivery to an individual. The Trial Court convicted both appellants based on the testimonies of official witnesses and the evidence presented. The defense argued false implication and lack of compliance with Section 50 provisions. However, the Court found the testimonies of official witnesses reliable and convicted the appellants.

2. Compliance with Legal Provisions:
The defense contended that mandatory provisions of Section 50 were not followed, and no independent panch witnesses were associated during the recovery. The prosecution argued that two panch witnesses were present during the recovery, and efforts were made to produce them in court. The Court held that Section 50 did not apply as the contraband was recovered from the baggage, not the person, of the accused.

3. Corroboration of Evidence:
The defense pointed out material discrepancies and improvements in witness statements, alleging fabrication. However, the Court emphasized that contradictions did not undermine the core issue of contraband recovery. The testimonies of official witnesses, supported by confessional statements and other documents, were considered credible and formed the basis of conviction.

4. Confessional Statements and Evidence Admissibility:
The confessional statements of the accused were a crucial aspect of the case. The Court analyzed the voluntariness and admissibility of these statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It was noted that retracted confessions could still be relied upon if found to be voluntary and containing personal details known only to the accused.

5. Corroboration and Disposition:
The Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of both appellants. The testimonies of official witnesses, supported by confessional statements and recovery memos, were considered reliable. The Court dismissed the appeals, maintaining the Trial Court's decision, and ordered the Trial Court record to be sent back.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the reliability of official witness testimonies, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the sufficiency of evidence presented during the trial.