2020 (10) TMI 1104 - SC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Charas - Whether bias was caused by complainant also being the investigating officer? - HELD THAT - There are no reason to draw any adverse inference against PW8 himself investigating his complaint. The appellants claim of bias stems from the purported delays, non-compliance of statutory mandates and non-examination of independent witness. In effect, the appellants are seeking to circuitously use the very same arguments which have individually been held by the High Court to be factually incorrect or legally irrelevant. Although in some cases, certain actions (or lack thereof) by the Investigating Officer might indicate bias; but mere deficiencies in investigation or chinks in the prosecution case can t be the sole basis for concluding bias. The appellants have at no stage claimed that there existed any enmity or other motive for the police to falsely implicate them and let the real culprits walk free. Further, such a huge quantity of charas could not have been planted against the appellants by the police on its own. Whether alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses? - HELD THAT - As correctly appreciated by the High Court in detail, non-examination of independent witnesses would not ipso facto entitle one to seek acquittal. Though a heighted standard of care is imposed on the court in such instances but there is nothing to suggest that the High Court was not cognizant of this duty. Rather, the consequence of upholding the trial Court s reasoning would amount to compulsory examination of each and every witness attached to the formation of a document. Not only is the imposition of such a standard of proof unsupported by statute but it is also unreasonably onerous in our opinion. The High Court has rightly relied upon the testimonies of the government officials having found them to be impeccable after detailed reappreciation of the entire evidence - there are no reason to disagree with such finding(s). Whether High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal? - HELD THAT - There is no gainsaid that High Courts are well within their power to reverse an acquittal and award an appropriate sentence; though they cautiously exercise such powers in practice. Illustratively, a few permissible reasons which would necessitate such interference by the High Court include patent errors of law, grave miscarriage of justice, or perverse findings of fact - the trial Court appreciated facts in a mechanical manner and dismissed the prosecution case based on a misinterpretation of law, particularly qua satisfying the burden of proof. Hence, there were more than enough reasons for the High Court to interfere with the acquittal and arrive at a different finding. There is no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bias due to the complainant also being the investigating officer.
2. Establishment of an alternate version by the appellants.
3. Effect of lack of independent witnesses.
4. High Court's reversal of acquittal in appeal.
5. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Whether bias was caused by the complainant also being the investigating officer?

The primary issue debated concerns the effect of the complainant, PW8, also being the investigating officer. The appellants contended that this dual role jeopardized the trial, citing a line of cases ending with *Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab* (2018) 17 SCC 627. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this issue has been settled by the Constitutional Bench in *Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)* 2020 SCC OnLine SC 700, which concluded that merely because the informant is also the investigator, the investigation does not suffer from bias or unfairness unless actual bias or real likelihood of bias is demonstrated. The Court found no reason to draw an adverse inference against PW8 investigating his complaint, noting that the appellants' claims of bias were based on purported delays and procedural non-compliance, which were found factually incorrect or legally irrelevant by the High Court. The appellants did not claim any enmity or motive for the police to falsely implicate them.

II. Whether an alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses?

The appellants argued that they should be acquitted due to two varying versions of the incident. The Supreme Court explained that "reasonable doubt" refers to the degree of certainty required before determining guilt. The evidence must be conclusive enough to remove all reasonable doubts. The Court found that the appellants failed to make a case where two reasonable conclusions could be reached. The appellants' alternative version, involving an unidentified third person carrying the narcotics, was deemed fanciful and unsupported by evidence. The Court also noted that non-examination of independent witnesses does not automatically entitle one to acquittal. The High Court had found the testimonies of the government officials impeccable after detailed reappreciation of the evidence.

III. Whether the High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal?

The Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts have the power to reverse an acquittal and award an appropriate sentence, especially in cases of patent errors of law, grave miscarriage of justice, or perverse findings of fact. The trial Court's dismissal of the prosecution case was based on a misinterpretation of law, particularly regarding the burden of proof. The High Court had ample reason to interfere with the acquittal and arrive at a different finding. The appellants' claim that the High Court erred in not considering non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also dismissed. The Court clarified that the safeguards for the search of a person do not extend to bags or other articles being carried, as held in *State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar* (2005) 4 SCC 350.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. The appellants' bail bonds were canceled, and the respondent-State was directed to take them into custody to serve the remainder of their ten-year sentences. All other pending applications were disposed of accordingly.