The Supreme Court On 15th Sep 2020, in the case of Jeet Ram v. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Justice M.R. Shah held that merely because independent witnesses were not examined it is no ground to reject the Case of the prosecution.
Factual Background
The appellant-accused was found in possession of 13kg of charas by the NCB officers. In June 2001 the NCB officers reached the dhaba of the accused and there they found a gunny bag containing 13kg of charas that was kept near the counter at the dhaba. All the charas was seized by the NCB and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 67 of the NDPS act. Charges were framed against him under section 20 of the NDPS, act. The trial court after hearing the contention of the parties acquitted the accused on the grounds that there were many infirmities in the case of the prosecution. An appeal was filed by the NCB under section 36B of the NDPS act read with section 378 of the CrPC before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The Prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 13kg charas was recovered from the accused possession who was managing the dhaba. High Court Convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 years and pay a fine of 2lakhs. The accused filed an appeal before S.C.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
Firstly the counsel submitted that the story of the prosecution is not supported by any independent witness and he is a pujari at the temple. Secondly, The counsel submitted that there was no evidence on record that shows that the charas was seized from the accused possession. Whereas it was found near the counter of the Dhaba. Thirdly, the counsel relying on the case of K. Mohan v. State of Kerala that the search notice issued to the appellant was not in accordance with section 50 of the NDPS act. Moreover, the testimony of the defence witness was not considered in a proper perspective by the high court and 15 years imprisonment and a fine of 2lakhs is very excess taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
The counsel submitted that the finding recorded by the trial court are enormous and contrary to the evidence on record. Moreover, the incident had taken place at about 10.30 pm at the Dhaba which is away from the actual village, and merely because independent witnesses were not examined it is no ground to reject the Case of the prosecution. Moreover, it was admitted that the dhaba was being run by his wife which is near to the temple. As such, it cannot be said that the seized material of charas was not from his possession.
Court Analysis
The court noted that there is no basis for the findings recorded by the trial court that there was non-compliance with the provision u/s 50 of the NDPS act. Its also clear that the witness examined on behalf of the appellant is closely related to the accused as such they could not be said to be independent witnesses. Moreover dealing with the issue of possession, it is to notice that the dhaba is constructed on the land of Kaushalya Devi who is the wife of the accused, and the accused even himself claimed to be the owner of the Dhaba.
Judgment
The court said that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity so as to interfere with the judgment of conviction. The appeal was partly allowed as the court reduced the imprisonment to 10 years while maintaining the conviction and the penalty as imposed by the High Court. The order of sentence dated 31.12.2012 passed by the High Court stands modified.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
