2024 (4) TMI 164 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction overturned for contraband possession after prosecution violated Section 313 CrPC examination requirements

NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU Versus STATE OF HARYANA

The SC set aside the appellant's conviction for conscious possession of contraband poppy seeds due to violation of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution ... Conscious possession of contraband item - poppy seeds - facts not put to the appellant during his examination - Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The circumstance against the appellant that he visited the railway station and enquired with the station supervisor about the contraband parcels has not been put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C - Even the alleged circumstance that the railway receipt was in the appellant’s name has not been put to him in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon against the appellant were not put to him in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Even the question No. 15 does not incorporate any specific circumstance against the accused - the 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 Cr.P.C. at this stage, nearly twenty-two 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. The appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years. If, after the lapse of more than twenty-two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it will cause prejudice to him. Therefore, the failure to put two relevant circumstances to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. will be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, on this ground, the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. The impugned judgments of the Trial Court and High Court are set aside only insofar as the present appellant is concerned - Appeal allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves the conviction under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of contraband without a license or permit, based on recovery of poppy straw parcels at a railway station and subsequent arrests.Factual aspects:The appellant, along with two co-accused, was convicted for possession of 205 kilograms of poppy straw without authorization. The prosecution established their conscious possession of the contraband, leading to their conviction by the Special Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court.Submissions:The appellant argued that he was a rickshaw puller and visited the railway station to enquire about a missing co-accused, denying any involvement in the contraband. The respondent contended that the railway receipt was in the appellant's name, indicating his control over the contraband.Consideration of submissions:Witness testimonies revealed that the appellant did not produce the railway receipt, which was with the co-accused. Despite the prosecution's reliance on the receipt being in the appellant's name, this fact was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.Legal analysis:The failure to confront the appellant with crucial circumstances during examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was deemed a serious irregularity, prejudicing the appellant's defense. Citing established legal principles, the Court held that omitting material circumstances from the accused's examination vitiates the trial, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.Judgment:The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction while upholding the convictions of the other accused. The appellant was acquitted of the alleged offense, and his bail bonds were cancelled, emphasizing the significance of a fair and comprehensive examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.