Case Title:
Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment:
10.09.2020
Bench:
Ashok Bhushan
R. Subhash Reddy
M.R. Shah
Parties:
Appellant - Rizwan Khan
Respondent - State of Chhattisgarh
Subject
According to the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not important to convict the person. Also, in a case when the only witness turns hostile it is not mandatory to be wholly considered to the level of discharging the prosecution witness.
Important Provisions
Sections 20(b)(ii)(B),50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985.
Overview
The Appellant and one another Prakhraj were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(2)(B) of NDPS Act and was punished for 5 years with Rs.25,000 fine. This was because they were in possession of 25 kg Ganja in their motor vehicle. Nothing was found on the accused himself and the ownership of the vehicle was not proved.
Issues
Whether the accused were properly convicted under the NDPS Act's Section 20(b)(ii)(b).
Whether the police officers serving as witnesses were considered to be trustworthy and reliable.
Whether section 42 of the NDPS Act was appropriately followed.
Is ownership of the vehicle required to be proved in a case under the NDPS Act.
Analysis of Judgement
- Counsel for the appellant argued that section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been followed with regard to property and that the lower courts had made a mistake in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of police officers' testimony. Furthermore, it was claimed that the panchnama witnesses and the person who weighed the amount of Ganja did not support the prosecution's case. They further cast doubt on the case by claiming that the constables who escorted Prosecution Witness 4 throughout his recovery were not questioned.
- Most critically, the appellant's attorney argued that the prosecution failed to establish ownership of the motorcycle. Finally, the appellant requested that a lenient view be taken of his case and that his sentence be lowered because he had already served three years in prison and section 20 of the NDPS Act does not provide a minimum term of incarceration.
- The respondent - The State of Chhattisgarh - submitted that, based on the evidence on file and the facts considered by the investigating officer, it was clear that the courts below have rightly convicted the accused of the offense under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and that section 42 of the NDPS Act was properly complied with in the accused's conviction.
- It was also argued that if independent witnesses such as panchnama witnesses or the person who weighed the amount of Ganja have become hostile by refusing to support the prosecution case, the entire case does not have to be dismissed, i.e. the evidence of other witnesses, such as police officials, cannot be thrown out.
- The prosecution witnesses have given their full support to the case and are also reliable. Furthermore, the accused was not convicted just on the basis of the police officers' testimony, but rather on the basis of corroborating statements. They further argued that because the prosecution failed to prove possession of the vehicle, the accused persons could not be considered to have been found on the spot with the illicit objects in the vehicle.
- Furthermore, even though the independent witness had become hostile, the police witnesses were reliable and trustworthy because they have been properly cross-examined by the defense, and according to the defense's statement, there was no enmity between the police and the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. "There is no law that states that police evidence must be disregarded or rejected unless it is backed up by independent evidence."
- And, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, it was held that the court cannot, in any case, begin with the assumption that the police records are unreliable. Concerning the appellant's claim of noncompliance with section 42, the court noted that compliance with this section had been appropriately established and was demonstrated by noting the deposition of Prosecution Witness 8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that proving whether the vehicle belonged to the accused was irrelevant.
- "Under the NDPS Act, it is not necessary to demonstrate and prove vehicle ownership; it is sufficient to establish and prove that the illicit articles were located on the accused from the vehicle acquired by the accused." The court did not consider the appellant's request for a lighter punishment; instead, the court looked at the NDPS Act's intent and purpose. The prayer was denied since the Act's goal is to punish people with long prison sentences and hefty fines. The court went on to say that the lower courts had already taken a lenient stance by issuing a 5-year sentence rather than a 10-year or longer sentence.
Conclusion
It is vital to emphasize that the prosecution witness is not required to be discharged if the independent witness has become hostile. In this case, the author believes that while the prosecution witness does not need to be discharged, independent witnesses must be given weight in order to condemn the appellant.Also, when it comes to automobile ownership, it cannot be dismissed as a minor detail. It may be inconsequential if all other evidence favors the prosecution, but if the appellant has raised doubts about several areas of the case, including ownership, it must be regarded as fair justice.
There were several doubts raised by the appellant in this case as well, and the court evaluated this perspective after hearing all of the arguments given by the counsels, so it would feel reasonable. When the appellant raises a series of issues, and the court agrees, such as when independent witnesses become hostile or when the ownership of the car becomes irrelevant, it may not be appropriate to convict the appellant.
Click here for NDPS Course by Adv. Taraq Sayed and Riva Pocha.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
