2024 (12) TMI 1129 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of the application for discharge u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. - commission of offences like supply of narcotics - whether the dismissal of the application for discharge filed by the appellant calls for interference in view of the nature of the charge framed against him and the materials on record to support the same? - HELD THAT - The alleged offence is consumption of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than those specified in or under clause (a) of Section 27, NDPS Act, and therefore, the question is whether any material is available to charge the appellant thereunder. The contention of the appellant is that he has been arraigned as accused No.13 based on the confession statement of co-accused viz., accused No.1. Certainly, in the absence of any other material on record to connect the appellant with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime. This view has been fortified by the law laid down in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra 1998 (9) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was stated that a co-accused s confession containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against him. The materials on record would reveal that the investigating agency had not subjected him to medical examination and instead, going by complaint Witness No.23, he smelt the accused. The sole material available against the appellant is the confession statement of the co-accused viz., accused No.1, which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial and against the appellant. When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at the trial stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand the trial. In view of the settled position of law stated and reiterated by this Court, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with and the appeal is liable to be allowed - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the dismissal of the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. against accused No.13 was justified.
2. The sufficiency of evidence, particularly the reliance on the confession of a co-accused, to frame charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act against accused No.13.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Dismissal of Discharge Application:

The central issue in this appeal was whether the dismissal of the discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the lower courts was appropriate. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C., which allows a judge to discharge an accused if, upon consideration of the case record and documents, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court emphasized that the judge must exercise judicial discretion and is not merely a post office for the prosecution. It was highlighted that if two views are possible, and one leads to mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the accused should be discharged.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence and Reliance on Co-accused's Confession:

The appellant, accused No.13, was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, which pertains to the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The Court scrutinized the evidence against the appellant, noting that the primary basis for the charge was the confession of a co-accused, accused No.1. The Court referred to established legal precedents, including the decision in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, which assert that a confession by a co-accused cannot alone be sufficient to frame charges. Furthermore, the Court observed that there was no medical examination or recovery of contraband from the appellant, and the only other evidence was the testimony of a witness who claimed to have smelled the accused, which the Court found inadequate.

The Court also emphasized that under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible. The Supreme Court concluded that without any material that could be translated into evidence at trial, there was no prima facie case against the appellant. It was stressed that subjecting an individual to trial without sufficient evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the lower courts and discharging accused No.13 from the case. The decision underscored the necessity of having substantial evidence before proceeding to trial, particularly when the only evidence is a co-accused's confession, which is inadmissible. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to the ordeal of a trial without a prima facie case.