Arranging Job For Accused Is Not Harbouring Him If Unaware Of Involvement In Crime: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that arranging job for an accused person doesn't amount to harbouring him when there is lack of evidence to prove the person knew about his involvement in crime.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of case registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A and 29(1) NDPS Act, 1985 and 120(B) of IPC.

The Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal observed, "On careful perusal of the above said judgements it is clear that in the absence of any other materials on records to connect the accused with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime. In the case on hand also except the confession statement of co- accused that too before the police which is inadmissible in evidence and no other materials to implicate the petitioner in this crime."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate G.Karuppasamy Pandian while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate M. Sakthi Kumar.

Facts of the Case

The case of the prosecution was that the Petitioner along with other accused were found indulged in selling of kanja and there by the other accused caught red handed and based on the confession of the co-accused, the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused for harbouring the accused and he has been charged for the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c),25, 27A and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and 120(B) of the IPC.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge about the incident and except the confession statement of the accused, there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner was involved in the harbouring the accused. He further submitted that even as per the prosecution he only arranged job to accused, therefore there is no materials to constitute the offence under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that it is well settled law that only based on the confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate the accused no charges can be framed. In this case, it further observed that the Petitioner was implicated as one of the accused only based on the confession statement of the accused and no other evidence is collected during investigation

"In this case except the confession statement of A3, no other evidence collected by the investigation agency. Even according to the confession of A3, the petitioner/A7 arranged job for A3 at Tirupur and the same will not amount to harbouring the accused, there is no piece of evidence that the petitioner had knowledge about the involvement of the A3 in the kanja case Only because for arranging job to A3 at Tirupur the petitioner cannot be roped in this case as an accused under Section 27(A) of NDPS Act. The investigation officer not even examined any person where the A3 was working at Tirupur to implicate the petitioner as one of the accused. Except the confession statement of A3 no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, therefore without any materials the petitioner cannot face the ordeal of trial," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: B. Karthick vs. The Inspector of Police

Click here to read/ download Order