Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8C r/w. s. 20(b)(ii)(c) – Appellant was convicted u/s. 8C r/w. s. 20(b)(ii)(c) of the 1985 Act for the recovery of 48 Kgs 200 gms. cannabis (ganja) and sentenced for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment – The appellant was held to be owner of the house by the courts below, from where cannabis was recovered – Appellant’s defence that he had sold the said house to the co-accused was rejected – Held: The appellant had produced the sale agreement dated 12.06.2009 of the property in question with promptness – The said document was never investigated for its genuineness by the police and neither panchayat records were verified – The appellant was held guilty and convicted in view of his name being recorded as the owner of the house in the voters list 2008, ignoring the fact that sale agreement was subsequent to the same on 12.06.2009 – The prosecution cannot be held to have proved the sale agreement as fabricated and fictitious document – Further, no appeal was preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of the co-accused – In view of the nature of evidence available it is not possible to hold that the prosecution had established conscious possession of the house with the appellant so as to attribute the presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of the contraband – There was gross misappreciation of evidence by the courts below and the police investigation was extremely casual, perfunctory and shoddy in nature – Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The police being in a quandary with regard to the ownership and possession of the house in question due to a flawed, defective and incomplete investigation found it convenient to implicate the appellant also, sanguine that at least one of the two would be convicted. It is rightly submitted that according to normal human prudence, it stands to reason why the appellant who was residing in his new house for the last 15 years would identify his own erstwhile house as that of the accused, be a witness to the breaking of the lock and recovery to implicate himself. [Para 11][178-B-C]
2. The appellant had produced the sale agreement, Exhibit P.28 with promptness the very next day of recovery of contraband. It was never investigated for its genuineness by the police and neither were the panchayat records verified. The panchayat records are public documents and would have been the best evidence to establish the ownership and possession of the house. Despite the best evidence being available the police considered it sufficient to obtain a certificate Exhibit P-37 signed by P.W. 14 who acknowledged her signature but denied knowledge of the contents of the certificate. The voters list entry of 2008 being prior to the sale is of no consequence. It is not without reason that the co-accused had absconded. [Para 12][178-D-E]
3. The appellant was held guilty and convicted in view of his name being recorded as the owner of the house in the voters list 2008, ignoring the fact that sale agreement was subsequent to the same on 12.06.2009. The prosecution cannot be held to have proved that Exhibit P-18 was a fabricated and fictitious document. No appeal has been preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of the co-accused. [Para 13][178-F-G]
4. In view of the nature of evidence available it is not possible to hold that the prosecution had established conscious possession of the house with the appellant so as to attribute the presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of the contraband. Conviction could not be based on a foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude on a preponderance of probabilities, the guilt of the appellant without establishing the same beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 14] [178-G-H; 179-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.