Supreme Court overturns conviction in NDPS case due to flawed evidence: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Trilok Chand (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 30

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can minor discrepancies in witness statements lead to the dismissal of a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court examined whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction of the accused due to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On July 10, 2004, Inspector Anjani Kumar of the CID, Shimla, received secret information about individuals involved in the illegal charas trade. He proceeded to Panarsa Bridge with other police personnel and two independent witnesses, Amar Chand and Kuldeep Kumar. According to the prosecution, at around 11:30 PM, the accused, Trilok Chand and another person, arrived carrying three gunny bags of charas. Upon seeing the police, they allegedly tried to flee but were apprehended. The police seized the contraband, prepared samples, and registered a case against them.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The accused appealed to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which overturned the trial court’s decision, acquitting them. The State of Himachal Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which deals with the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. The section states:

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis,
shall be punishable,—
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(ii) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(iii) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees;
(iv) where such contravention relates to clause (b),—
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

The Act aims to control and regulate operations related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 55 of the NDPS Act, which was also mentioned in the judgment, deals with the procedure for police officers after seizure.

Arguments

State of Himachal Pradesh:

• The State argued that the High Court had given undue importance to minor discrepancies in the prosecution’s case.
• The State contended that the High Court ignored the cogent evidence provided by official witnesses.
• The State submitted that the High Court erred in law by setting aside the conviction without assigning any plausible reasons.

Accused-Respondents:

• The accused-respondents supported the High Court’s decision to acquit them.
• They argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.
• They contended that they were falsely implicated by the police and were taken from a tea shop, not apprehended with contraband.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction under the NDPS Act due to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize that while minor discrepancies in witness statements can be overlooked, major contradictions are fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar , (2001) 8 SCC 86 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to highlight that the court must assess the trustworthiness of evidence and accept it only if it inspires confidence.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247*: The Court applied the principle that major contradictions are fatal to the prosecution’s case, while minor discrepancies can be overlooked.
• Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar , (2001) 8 SCC 86*: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of assessing the trustworthiness of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that in cases under the NDPS Act, where the punishment is stringent, the proof must be of the highest standard. The following points weighed in the mind of the Court:

• Discrepancies in Witness Statements: The Court noted significant contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the time of the incident, the location of seizure, and the sequence of events.
• Independent Witnesses: The Court highlighted that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version, further weakening their case.
• Tampering with Evidence: The Court observed that there was evidence suggesting that the case property was tampered with and that the place of seizure was incorrectly recorded.
• Benefit of Doubt: Given the numerous flaws in the prosecution’s case, the Court concluded that the accused deserved the benefit of doubt.

The Court stated:

“It is imperative that the law the Court should follow for awarding conviction under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is “stringent the punishment stricter the proof.”

The Court also noted:

“In such cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication.”

Finally, the Court concluded:

“But, in the case on hand, under the above explained circumstances, the prosecution story cannot be believed to award conviction to the accused—respondents. They deserve benefit of doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• In NDPS Act cases, the prosecution must present strong and consistent evidence to secure a conviction.
• Major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses can lead to the dismissal of the case.
• Independent witnesses play a crucial role in corroborating the prosecution’s story, and their lack of support can weaken the case.
• The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the prosecution’s case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases under the NDPS Act, where the punishment is stringent, the prosecution must present a strong and consistent case. The Court reaffirmed that major contradictions in witness statements and lack of support from independent witnesses can lead to the dismissal of the case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, failing to meet the high standard of proof required for convictions under the NDPS Act. This judgment emphasizes the importance of meticulous investigation and consistent evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving stringent punishments.