9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 549 - SC - Indian LawsSmuggling - Charas - acquittal of accused - accused was acquitted by recording a finding that the case of prosecution was not free from doubt and there were many infirmities in the case of the prosecution to hold that the accused was found to be in possession of charas, as alleged by the prosecution - Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - There are no substance in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, except the submission on the quantum of sentence. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court / appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court merely because another view is possible. As noted earlier, in support of his argument that merely because another view is possible, same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal by the appellate court. It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant was on the counter of the dhaba which was constructed on the land owned by his wife near the temple and the charas was found in the counter of the dhaba in a gunny bag. The facts of the case show that accused not only had direct physical control over charas, he had the knowledge of its presence and character. As rightly contended by Sri Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General in the case of Mohan Lal (2015) 6 SCC 222 this Court had held that a functional and flexible approach in defining and understanding possession as a concept has to be adopted and the word has to be understood keeping in mind the purpose and object of the enactment. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, though the appellant has referred to Brij Lal and Mantu in support of a version, contrary to that presented by prosecution but he has not chosen to examine either Brij Lal or Mantu. No defence witness has deposed to the chain of events, as has been stated by the appellant in the statement under Section 313, Cr.PC. It is also fairly well settled that where accused offers false answers in examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, same also can be used against him. Further onus was on the appellant to explain the possession and in absence of the same being discharged, presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act also will kick in. The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity so as to interfere with the judgment of conviction - there are force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in sentencing the appellant for 15 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹ 2,00,000/-. In view of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2001 and as the appellant claimed to be a priest in the temple, who is now aged about 65 years, we deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant - the sentence awarded on the appellant is reduced to a period of 10 (ten) years, while maintaining the conviction and the penalty as imposed by the High Court. The order of sentence dated 31.12.2012 passed by the High Court stands modified. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court overturning the trial court's acquittal. 2. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 3. Validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution. 4. Conscious possession of the seized charas by the appellant. 5. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the High Court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the High Court Overturning the Trial Court's Acquittal: The appellant contended that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's acquittal without cogent reasons, arguing that the trial court's view was a possible one. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that appellate courts have full powers to review evidence and overturn acquittals if the trial court's findings are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. The Court cited precedents such as *Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan* and *Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana*, affirming that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction. 2. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act: The trial court had acquitted the appellant partly on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 50 applies only to personal searches, not to searches of premises or vehicles. This interpretation was supported by the precedent set in *State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar*. Thus, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding non-compliance with Section 50. 3. Validity of the Evidence Presented by the Prosecution: The appellant argued that the prosecution's case was not supported by independent witnesses and that the evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court noted that the incident occurred at 10:30 p.m. in a remote dhaba, making it unreasonable to expect independent witnesses. The Court found the testimonies of the NCB officials consistent and trustworthy, and it dismissed the appellant's claim that the case was unnatural and improbable. The Court also addressed concerns about potential tampering with the samples, noting that the samples were sealed and signed by a Judicial Magistrate, thereby ruling out tampering. 4. Conscious Possession of the Seized Charas by the Appellant: The trial court had doubted the appellant's conscious possession of the charas. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant was in control of the dhaba where the charas was found, and he had admitted to owning the dhaba. The Court emphasized that the appellant's failure to provide a credible alternative explanation for the possession of the charas, along with his false answers during the Section 313 Cr.PC examination, supported the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act. 5. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed by the High Court: The High Court had sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?2,00,000. The Supreme Court, considering the appellant's age (65 years) and his claim of being a priest, found the sentence excessive. The Court modified the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the conviction and the fine imposed by the High Court. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment of conviction, finding no infirmity in its decision to overturn the trial court's acquittal. However, the Court reduced the sentence from 15 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the appellant's age and circumstances. The appeal was partly allowed to this extent.
|
