Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Facts- The appellant Gangadhar alias Gangaram sold his house in Nimkhed Village to a person named Goku Dangi on 12th June 2009 for Rs 45000, the sale deed was registered on 26th June 2009 with one Tolaram and Ghasiram, the village watchman as witnesses who printed their fingerprints as signatures. The police received secret information on 11th August 2009 that Gokul Dangi had stored unlawful substances in his house situated in gram Nimkhed The police came in the village for search and capture and were helped by Gangaram and Ghasiram in locating the house, the house was locked from inside, the police broke the lock of the house and recovered 48 kgs.200gms of unlawful cannabis the appellant and the watchman saw this Gokul was not there in the house during the search, in the absence of Gokul investigation was done and a criminal case was registered in the name of Gangadhar his name was included in the charge sheet as co-accused along with Gokul The special judge along with Gokul. The special judge of the Sessions Court held that Gangaram prepared a forged agreement for the of his said house but the same is still recovered in his name as per the 2008 voters list so it was assumed that the seized quantity of unlawful belongs to him leading to his conviction under section 8 and section 20 (B) (II) (C) of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 with 10 years of Rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,00,000/- The appellant filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh high court against the findings and judgement of the Trial Court, however, the high court confirmed the decision of the trial court against his conviction. The appellant has therefore filed an appeal before the supreme court to relied on this matter and has prayed for acquittal.
Issues
1) Whether Gangaram had forged the sales agreement was still the owner and in the possession of the house
2) Whether the sentenced of Gangarm under the NDPS Act, 1985 is made on sufficient lawful grounds
3) whether the owner of the house of gangaram proves that he had the unlawful substances found in the house.
Legal provisions
1) Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
2)Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 section 8C and 20 (b) (ii) (c) section 35 , 37 and 54
Appellant Contention
The counsel for the appellant depending on the case Gopal v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) said that the sentenced was based on the assumption of the ownership of the house. It was resisted as to why would an appellant implicate himself by taking the police as to his own house and witness them break the lock to recover unlawful substances the next days of search and capture the appellant produced the registered sales deed before the police but it was not investigated the appellant contended that he was made an accused due to the failure of police to investigate properly.
Respondent Contentions
The respondent said that Toloaram one of the witnesses to the sales deed rejected being the witness for the same and supposed that his thumbprint was impersonated he also stated that he did not use his fingerprints instead he signed his name in Hindi, therefore, he tightly held that the sales agreement was forged; voters list entry of 2008 proved gangaram's ownership of the house it was also said that the gram panchayat record proved the same.
Observation of courts
The Supreme Court of India heard the appeal before the Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha. The court after hearing from both the sides made the observations regarding the facts that the police went for search and capture of unlawful in Nimkhed Village on 12th August 2009 where the appellant the watchman Ghasiram and other villagers identified the house as belonging to Gokul Dangi the next day the appellant produced his sale agreement dated 26th June 2009 to the police but it was not investigated by them and no explanation was given for the same, the Gram Panchayat records were also not investigated by the police officer who took over the case from investigating police officer the appellant was made an accused based on his entry in 2008 voters list. The appellant was supposed to be using the said house, not for living but as a storeroom, however, no proof was found to support this claim. The police officer who was there during the search and capture also identified the house as belonging to Gokul Dangi, this was proved by the gram panchayat records. Then it was observed that the prosecution failed to examine ghasiram who saw both the registration of the sales deed and police search and capture. There was no forensic report made for confirming Tolaram's denial of his thumbprint on the sale agreement.
The court called the police questioning as faulty and shoddy it held that there was a gross miss appreciation of evidence of session court and the court that the prosecution relied on a foundation of conjectured and summarises to conclude on a preponderance of probabilities the guilt of the appellant. The police investigation failed to establish a prima facie case and thus led to the conviction of the appellant for the crime he did not commit. The court stated that the appellant had been denied the right to fair investigation guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution the court saw that it did not interfere with concurrent findings of facts into appreciation of proof but when individual liberty was concerned due to insufficient proof and prosecution's failure to establish prove facie case, the court would not be inhibited in protecting individual liberty.
Judgement
The court held that the conviction of the appellant as unsustainable and it was set aside . the appellant was told to set at liberty
86540
103860
630
114
59824