2016 (5) TMI 505 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking modification in sentence order - Seizure of poppy husk - Appellant relied upon the statements given by the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 wherein they had pleaded innocence and had stated that they had been falsely implicated Held that - once credible evidence has come on record which establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt mere statement of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 would be of no help to the accused person. It is found that the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years which is awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is the minimum sentence that can be awarded for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Therefore no merit found in these appeals. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Accused persons charged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals filed by accused persons convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The case involved the apprehension of a truck carrying poppy husk based on reliable information. Accused individuals were found in possession of 59 bags of poppy husk during a raid, leading to their arrest and subsequent legal proceedings. The Trial Court acquitted one accused and convicted the remaining five, a decision upheld by the High Court.

Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts' judgments were well-founded on documentary and ocular evidence, establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The defense's reliance on the accused persons' statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming innocence and false implication, was deemed insufficient in the presence of credible evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that mere statements by the accused under Section 313 cannot override substantial evidence proving guilt.

The Supreme Court noted that the ten-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court was the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. Additionally, during the appeal process, two accused individuals were granted bail but were ordered to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and upholding the prescribed minimum sentence for offenses under the NDPS Act.