2017 (5) TMI 732 - HC - Indian Laws

Guilty and conviction for the offence punishable under Section 15 (c) of NDPS Act - period of sentence - whether punishment awarded by the learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal is disproportionate to the act committed by the appellant? - Held that - The instant case, the accused-appellant has pleaded simple false implication in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has not given any explanation as to how he came to be present in the fields where the three bags containing poppy-straw were lying and he has brought one bag out of those to the Kacha path. Thus, the conduct of the appellant establishes that he was fully aware about the nature and substance in those bags. So, there is no escape from the conclusion that appellant was in conscious possession of all the three gunny bags containing poppy-straw. As per the custody certificate, accused-appellant has undergone the total sentence of eight years nine months and nineteen days including remission as on 24.01.2017. He is in custody since the date of his arrest. It cannot be disputed that the accused-appellant has two daughters and also had responsibilities towards his family. Thus, he deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the appellant against conviction has no merits. The same is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the accused-appellant recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal under Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained. However, the sentence is modified from imprisonment of 14 years and pay a fine of ₹ 1,50,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- for committing the offence under Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act. The fine shall be recoverable in terms of Section 421 Cr.P.C.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 15 (c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Conscious possession of the accused over the contraband
3. Lack of independent witnesses in the case
4. Appeal for reduction of sentence based on personal circumstances

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the conviction of the accused under Section 15 (c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused, Harinder Singh @ Bhura, was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years and pay a fine of &8377; 1,50,000. The appeal challenges this conviction and sentence.

2. The issue of conscious possession of the accused over the contraband is a crucial aspect of the case. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused was seen dragging a gunny bag from a paddy field to a path, and upon noticing the police, he sat down near two more bags in the field. The court analyzed the conduct of the accused and established that his actions indicated awareness and deliberate possession of the contraband. The judgment cites legal precedents and statutory provisions to support the conclusion that the accused was in conscious possession of the illicit substance.

3. Another issue raised was the lack of independent witnesses in the case. The defense argued that the absence of independent witnesses near the place of recovery raised doubts about the reliability of the official witnesses' testimonies. However, the court held that the testimonies of official witnesses carry evidentiary value and can be relied upon, especially when there is no material contradiction or motive for false implication. Legal precedents were cited to support the notion that the absence of independent witnesses does not discredit the prosecution's version.

4. The final issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the appeal for a reduction in the sentence based on personal circumstances of the accused. The defense highlighted the accused's custody since the date of arrest, his familial responsibilities, and requested a more lenient view on the sentence. The court acknowledged these factors and modified the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a reduced fine of &8377; 1,00,000, considering the time already served by the accused and his personal situation.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing conscious possession based on the evidence presented. The appeal for reduction in sentence was partially accepted, leading to a modified sentence in consideration of the accused's personal circumstances.