2018 (5) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - prohibited goods - cannabis mixture weighing about 18.85 kgs - absence of independent witnesses - Held that - the grounds on which the High Court have reversed the findings of conviction of the accused-respondents ought not to be accepted - no suggestion was given to the witnesses (PWs 12 and 13) who had taken the samples to the laboratory that the contraband parcel has been tampered with. PW-16, who had chemically examined the contraband samples, was fully cross-examined by the defence. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that the sample(s) came to him in a torn or otherwise doubtful condition. In the absence of any animosity between the police party and the accused and having regard to the large quantity of contraband that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), we are of the view that it is unlikely that the contraband had been planted/foisted in the vehicle of the accused persons. Order of the High Court acquitting the accused-respondents set aside - order of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused-respondents under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 restored.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act - Examination of independent witnesses - Authenticity of contraband - Judgment reversal by High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the High Court's judgment acquitting two accused individuals of offenses under the NDPS Act. The accused were initially convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution's case involved a police party stopping a car on a highway, leading to the discovery of a significant amount of cannabis in the vehicle. The accused individuals were arrested, and further investigations implicated another individual as the source of the contraband. The Trial Court convicted two accused but acquitted the others. The High Court reversed the conviction based on the lack of independent witnesses, doubts about the contraband's origin, and its torn condition during presentation.

Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the necessity of independent witnesses in a prosecution case. The Court noted that the extreme weather conditions and the location of the incident made it plausible for independent witnesses not to be present during the contraband recovery. Considering the absence of animosity between the police and the accused, along with the substantial quantity of contraband seized, the Court found it unlikely that the contraband was planted. The Court also examined the condition of the contraband parcel, which was presented torn due to its nature and handling. The samples sent for forensic examination did not raise doubts of tampering, and the prosecution witnesses provided credible explanations for the torn condition. The Court concluded that the High Court's grounds for reversing the conviction were not valid.

In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal and reinstated the Trial Court's conviction of the accused individuals under the NDPS Act. The original sentence imposed by the Trial Court was also restored, and the accused individuals were ordered to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence, with the provision for custody if they fail to do so. The appeals by the State of Himachal Pradesh were allowed, overturning the High Court's judgment and upholding the Trial Court's decision.