Recently, in a compelling examination of evidentiary standards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Madras High Court revisited the boundaries of lawful conviction in prosecutions hinging on confessional statements and procedural compliance. At the heart of the case lay a contentious question, whether a conviction for possession of contraband could stand solely on a co-accused’s confession in the absence of independent recovery or proof of conscious possession. Read on to know how the Court dissected investigative lapses, assessed evidentiary credibility, and reaffirmed the principles safeguarding fair trial rights under the NDPS regime.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a prosecution under the NDPS Act, wherein the appellant was convicted by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that in June 2021, the police received secret information regarding the illegal possession of ganja. Acting on the information, the police intercepted the accused, including the appellant, and allegedly seized 24 kilograms of ganja from a white sack found at the scene. The contraband was recovered, samples were taken, and a report under Section 57 NDPS Act was submitted.
After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed, and the appellant was tried along with other accused. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default sentence of 12 months’ simple imprisonment. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Madras High Court challenging the conviction and sentence.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant’s counsel contended that the conviction rested solely on the confession of a co-accused, without any independent evidence establishing the appellant’s involvement. It was argued that no recovery was made from the Appellant, and his signature was not obtained in the recovery mahazar, rendering his alleged presence doubtful. While referring to multiple cases, counsel submitted that a conviction based solely on the confession of a co-accused is legally impermissible. It was further urged that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and hence, the entire case was vitiated.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Additional Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court, asserting that the Appellant’s presence at the scene of the occurrence had been clearly established through the consistent and credible testimonies of the police officers involved in the operation. He maintained that the Appellant was apprehended along with the principal accused and that the information initially received by the police specifically identified him as one of the persons engaged in the illegal possession of ganja. It was further contended that the evidence of the police officials was reliable and free from contradictions, and that there was no procedural lapse or irregularity warranting interference with the conviction.
Observation of the Court:
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that no recovery was effected from the appellant, and the entire case rested on the confession of the co-accused, which could not be the sole basis for conviction. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that a “simple confession of the co-accused is not sufficient to convict the appellant in the offence of grave nature.”
The Court found that the absence of the appellant’s signature in the recovery mahazar cast serious doubt on his presence and participation in the alleged offence. It held that “In these type of cases, more particularly if recovery is made in the heart of the city some independent witnesses ought to have been joined. It is settled principle that in the case of offence of grave nature, the initial burden of the prosecution is heavy. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the presence of the appellant and his conscious possession, to invoke the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.” The Court emphasised that the burden lies heavily on the prosecution in offences under the NDPS Act, and mere reliance on police testimony without corroborative material is insufficient to establish conscious possession or joint liability.
While examining procedural compliance, the Court found that the mandatory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been duly observed, highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of events. It noted that the handwritten information allegedly received under Section 42 was never produced before the Court, and the officer purportedly in receipt of such information had not been originally cited as a witness in the case. The Court further pointed out contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials involved, observing that the prosecution not only failed to prove the compliance of Section 42 but has also maneuvered to get conviction by leading false evidence.
Taking serious note of the false evidence presented, the Court observed that the police officials involved in the investigation had acted in concert to secure a conviction “by hook or crook,” and directed that a departmental inquiry be initiated against them. The Court further held that the Appellant, who had been incarcerated since the time of arrest, was entitled to compensation for the miscarriage of justice caused by the improper conduct of the investigating officers.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The Court directed the refund of the fine amount and cancellation of bail bonds, while further ordering that the police officers responsible for the false evidence pay Rs. 10 lakhs in compensation to the appellant jointly within one month. It also directed the Director General of Police to initiate an enquiry into their conduct, emphasising that a fair investigation and fair trial constitute fundamental rights of every accused.
Case Title: A.Vignesh Vs. State
Case No: Crl.A.(MD).No.351 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. G.Karupasamy Pandian
Advocate for Respondent: APP R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Read Judgment@Latestlaws.com
