"No Evidence Against Accused": Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside NDPS Case Against Individual Booked By Police Due To Mistaken Identity
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a person wrongly arrayed in an NDPS case by the police, without conducting any investigation regarding his identity, solely relying upon the statement of the co-accused.The peculiar facts of the case were that the police had arrested a person after recovering narcotics from him. The arrested person told the police that he had purchased the...
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a person wrongly arrayed in an NDPS case by the police, without conducting any investigation regarding his identity, solely relying upon the statement of the co-accused.
The peculiar facts of the case were that the police had arrested a person after recovering narcotics from him. The arrested person told the police that he had purchased the contrabands from a person named 'Pappu Ram' residing in the village of Sujanpura, MP.
Thereafter, without conducting any further investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and charged him under the NDPS Act. No witnesses of the village were examined by the police to substantiate the identity of the petitioner. Furthermore, even the trial court went on to frame charges against the petitioner against which the petition was preferred before the High Court.
The petitioner had produced several documentary evidence to argue that his name was not 'Pappu Ram' but 'Bhopal Singh'. He had put forth his Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, Certificate of School principal, mark sheet of high school, driving license, residential certificate and also the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the local Gram Panchayat of the village.
In this light, the Court observed that all material disclosed that the petitioner was not the person appearing in the statements of the co-accused but some other person having a different name. The Court held that in the event of lack of any direct material proving that the petitioner was the same person as mentioned by the co-accused, he could not be arrayed as an accused merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.
It was argued by the counsel for the state that at the stage of framing of charges no meticulous appreciation of evidence was allowed but a mere suspicion was sufficient to ask the accused to face trial.
Rejecting the argument put forth by the counsel, the Court stated that such suspicion should be based on legally admissible evidence that could be used against the accused during trial, in the absence of which his fundamental right of having a fair criminal prosecution should be protected.
“No doubt, a suspicion of commission of offence would be a ground to ask the accused to face trial, however, that suspicion must be based on legally admissible evidence. If there is no legal evidence against the petitioner which can be used during trial, the fundamental right of the petitioner, to have fair criminal prosecution, requires to be protected.”
Hence, the Court opined that there was no evidence connecting the identity of the petitioner to Pappu Ram who was named by the co-accused, rather contrary material was present to prove the real name of the petitioner. The order of the trial court framing charges against the petitioner, in complete disregard to the abovementioned analysis, was termed as suffering from illegality and impropriety.
Accordingly, the petitioner was released without charges.
Title: Bhopal Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 206