Material Circumstances Pleaded by Prosecution Not Put To Accused During Examination U/S 313 CrPC: SC Acquits NDPS Accused
|The Supreme Court acquitted an accused who was concurrently convicted under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the ground that the material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC by the Trial Court.
Due to the prolonged time lapse since the incident in May 2001, the Court deemed it unjust to subject the Appellant to additional examination under Section 313, almost twenty-two and a half years after the alleged recovery of contraband.
“Thus, the two circumstances alleged against the appellant will have to be kept out of consideration. There is no other material on record to connect the appellant with the offence. The incident is of May 2001, and therefore, it will be unjust to subject the appellant to further examination under Section 313 of CrPC at this stage, nearly twentytwo and half years from the date of the alleged recovery of the contraband. As the only material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution against the appellant were not put to him, a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant's defence. Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC”, the Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed.
Advocate Rishi Malhotra appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Monika Gusain appeared for the Respondents.
On an anonymous tip, the police officers in Ambala Cantonment recovered ten bags containing poppy straw from five parcels at the railway station. The parcels were destined for Kurail Railway Station. Upon reaching Kurail, police arrested the Appellant, who had approached station officials inquiring about the parcels. The prosecution alleged that Accused no. 1 had booked the parcels. The Special Court convicted all three accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), finding that the persons possessing the railway receipts of the parcels were deemed to have control over the contraband and, thus, in conscious possession thereof. The High Court upheld the convictions. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Apex Court by way of Criminal Appeal.
The Court noted that the material prosecution witnesses did not testify that the Appellant produced the railway receipt; instead, they consistently stated that another accused (accused no. 2) came to the railway station with the receipt. In the Appellant's examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), he denied any involvement in parcel bookings through railways. The Bench observed that the Appellant asserted that he had nothing to do with parcels, and no railway receipt or bill of lading was ever found on him. The Appellant claimed that Rahish, a rickshaw puller, went to inquire about the luggage on behalf of the owner, and, upon Rahish's failure to return, the Appellant went to verify. He contended that the police falsely implicated him, and the owner fled upon seeing them.
Upon reviewing the Appellant's examination under Section 313 of CrPC, the Court observed that certain circumstances, such as his visit to the railway station and inquiries about contraband parcels, were not presented to him during questioning. The Appellant was not questioned about the circumstance that the railway receipt was allegedly in his name. The Court observed that the critical aspects, including the possession of the receipt and the consignment being in his name, were not specifically addressed during his examination.
The Bench referred to the case of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and emphasized the importance of the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Bench reiterated that the accused must be given the opportunity to explain any incriminating evidence against them during the trial. Failure to do so can invalidate the trial if it prejudices the accused. However, if the irregularity can be remedied without causing injustice, it can be corrected.
Furthermore, the Court observed that two circumstances alleged against the appellant were not considered as they were not put to him during the examination under Section 313 of CrPC. With no other material connecting the appellant to the offense, and considering the unjust nature of subjecting him to further examination nearly twenty-two and a half years after the alleged recovery of contraband, the Court noted serious prejudice caused to the Appellant's defense. The Appellant has already undergone incarceration for five and a half years and would face prejudice if subjected to another examination under Section 313 of CrPC after such a long period.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the Appellant.
Cause Title: Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v State of Haryana (2023 INSC 1020)