Accused In Custody From Date Of Arrest Without Bail: Madras High Court Directs Police Officers To Pay ₹10L Compensation In NDPS Case
The Madras High Court noted that the simple confession of the co-accused is not sufficient to convict in the offence of grave nature.
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has directed three police officers to pay Rs. 10 lakhs compensation to a man who was arrested in the NDPS case.
The Madurai Bench was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Single Bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan remarked, “… this Court sees a unholy alliance between the witnesses to secure conviction based on false evidence. The appellant is in custody from the date of the arrest without bail. Therefore, in this case the appellant deserves to get suitable compensation from the P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the same is quantified as 10 lakhs payable by them jointly.”
The Bench said that it is very much concerned about giving of such false evidence and the same has to be dealt with seriously.
Advocate G. Karupasamy Pandian appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Meenakshi Sundaram appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
In 2021, the Sub Inspector of police received a secret information about illegal dealing of Ganja at a place called Melavasal on the rear side of Amma Unavagam Anganvadi Centre. He along with his team members went to the place of occurrence and mounted surveillance. The team intercepted the Appellant and other accused, who consented to conduct the search by the officer himself. On searching, a white colour sack was found and on opening the same, 24 kg of Ganja was found. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the procedures and took the samples of (50 gram) as S1 and S2 and properly sealed the same.
Resultantly, the Appellant and other accused were arrested. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under the NDPS Act. The Trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on appearance, served the copies under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The simple confession of the co-accused is not sufficient to convict the appellant in the offence of grave nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh case and also in a cantena of judgments, has reiterated the principle that conviction on the basis of the confession of the co-accused is not legally maintainable.”
The Court noted that in the absence of any concrete material to prove the presence of the Appellant at the occurrence place with the knowledge that A1 possessed Ganja, it is not inclined to convict the Appellant under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
“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”, it reiterated.
The Court, therefore, directed the Direct General of Police, Chennai to conduct enquiry about the conduct of the police officers after giving opportunity to them and take necessary action if circumstances warrants and the said enquiry shall be completed within one month.
“Fair investigation and fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that it is the duty of the investigation agency and prosecution agency to disclose the true facts before the Court without any concoction. Since this Court arrives at the above finding of false case on the material available on record and directs the higher officials to conduct enquiry”, it added.
Conclusion
The Court further directed the authority to conduct independent enquiry without being influenced by the finding in this Judgment.
“This Court hopes that the authority would conduct the enquiry in a dispassionate manner and arrive at a fair conclusion. … The appellant is acquitted from all the charges made in C.C.No. 329 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai (FAC). … Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, acquitted the accused, and directed the police officers to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs jointly within one month.
Cause Title- A. Vignesh v. The State (Case Number: Crl.A.(MD).No.351 of 2023)
