NDPS Act| Conviction May Be Based On Testimony Of Police Witnesses If It Inspires Confidence & Trust Of Court: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) may be safely based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of department if their testimony inspires confidence and trust of the Court.
The Lucknow Bench observed thus in a batch of criminal appeals preferred by three accused persons against the judgment of the Special Judge, NDPS Act by which they were convicted for the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), and 25 of the Act and were sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan enunciated, “Certainly the conviction of the accused person may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of department provided their testimony inspires confidence and trust of the Court and appreciation of their evidence must be with caution. Thus it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which matters.”
Advocates Pal Singh Yadav, Shakti Kumar Verma, and Apoorva Jyoti appeared for the appellants while Advocate Digvijay Nath Dubey appeared for the respondent.
Factual Background -
In 2017, a discrete information was received by DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) Unit Lucknow from its unit at Patna that a car had gone to Kathmandu, Nepal for the purpose of loading illegal ‘charas’ and after loading, the same was returning to Haryana. Based on this information, Deputy Director, DRI constituted a team comprising of Intelligence Officers and authorised it to apprehend the contraband along with wrongdoers. The personal search of the accused persons revealed their belongings mentioned in the seizure memo and they also informed that a cavity was created in the car, wherein illegal 'charas' was concealed.
Each of the battis/pieces was found weighing about 500/590 gms and the total weight was 53.540 kgs of which the market value was Rs. 53,20,000/-. Hence, a complaint was filed against the accused persons and the Special Court framed charges against them. Thereafter, they were convicted by the court. Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused persons were before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard said, “Perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses produced before the trial court, I am not in agreement with the submission of learned counsels for the appellants, as in order to put truthfulness in the story of the prosecution, it is required that efforts should be made to involve the independent public witnesses to stood as witness of search and seizure, however, in this case the two independent witnesses, who have witnessed the arrest and seizure have not appeared before the trial court despite efforts made by the D.R.I.”
The Court added that their absence from the trial court may not be the only ground to doubt and discard the otherwise reliable evidence given by the prosecution witnesses.
“It is the ugly face of today’s society that nobody wants to get himself involved in criminal matters of others and they do not want to earn bad relations with the accused persons while appearing as witnesses against them and the witnesses want to remain away from Court matters and they consider the crime as the matter between police and the victim and accused, therefore, if in this background, the independent witnesses, in this case, have not steeped into the witness box for the purpose of recording their evidence, their absence alone may not be sufficient to cast any doubt on the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution would be seen on the basis of the quality of evidence tendered by the witnesses of department as there is no rule of law or of prudence that the conviction could not be based on their testimony”, it further remarked.
The Court noted that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses appears to be reliable, trustworthy, and no illegality appears to have been committed by the trial court in accepting the same and in convicting the appellants as the case of the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court and the defence witnesses have failed to put any dent in the trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction of the appellants.
Cause Title- Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo v. Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:42303)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Pal Singh Yadav, Shakti Kumar Verma, Apoorva Jyoti, Ashish Kumar Singh, Prathama Singh, Ashish David Rao, Sumedha Sen, Nand Lal Pandey, and Ujjwal Pandey.
Respondent: Advocate Digvijay Nath Dubey
