Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under NDPS Act As Police Logbook Entries Contradicted Prosecution Version On Seizure
The Supreme Court recently set aside a conviction and acquitted appellants of charges under Sections 20 (Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis) and 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, because no independent witnesses were relied on and that the evidence adduced did not...
The Supreme Court recently set aside a conviction and acquitted appellants of charges under Sections 20 (Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis) and 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, because no independent witnesses were relied on and that the evidence adduced did not support prosecution's case.
As per the prosecution's case, during one random police patrolling in 2015, appellants were found in possession of a narcotic substance amounting to 1.25 kg 'charas'. The police recorded statements of two witnesses who were policemen, as according to them, no independent witnesses were available. The appellants were convicted by Trial Court and consequently, were sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigours imprisonment.
The appellants subsequently sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, alleging that the occurrence of the crime did not take place as alleged by the prosecution and appealed against the order before the High Court. They subsequently submitted a Logbook, which the High Court admitted as evidence and sent the information contained to the Trial Court to examine two police witnesses. The evidence recorded from two policemen would indicate that the entries made in the Logbook are correct.
As per the Logbook's information, the police party travelled to Primary Health Centre Nagwain, Bali Chowki and thereafter, to the Sessions Court in Mandi. After the said travel, they returned to the police station at 3.30 PM. As per the prosecution, the seizure and recovery of 'charas' was made during this point in time. Therefore, the Trial Court's judgment was upheld.
The judgment is challenged by the appellants, one of whom was granted bail by the Supreme Court, through a criminal appeal and review petition respectively.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar found that the Logbook clearly shows that the police vehicle was travelling towards a different destination as against where the police party had found appellants to be in possession of 'charas', and this is corroborated with the evidence of the police officer and the driver of the official vehicle.
The bench pointed out that the High Court ignored the information in the Logbook along with evidence by terming the discrepancies in the case as 'minor in nature'.
Therefore, the court held: "In our considered view, the said reasoning cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. There is no dispute with respect to the entries made, if that is the case, the very case of prosecution falls to the ground. We are dealing with the case where all the witnesses belonged to the police department and, therefore, there is no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. Even the undisputed document marked and the statement given by the two police witnesses, do not support the case of the prosecution."
Case Details: Prakash Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 616