Conviction for cultivating cannabis under Section 20(C) NDPS Act was set aside because seizure witnesses turned hostile, no evidence proved ownership or exclusive possession of the land, and no agricultural equipment was seized. The appellant was acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 7
2024:CGHC:44401-DB NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No.322 of 2020
Judgment reserved on : 24.09.2024 Judgment delivered on : 14.11.2024
1 - Kunwar Sai Pahadi Korwa S/o Vishwas Pahadi Korwa Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karmaha, Hasuwadand, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA
Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. R. A. Memon, PL
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey H on’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
C A V Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey J.
2 / 7
sentenced to undergo RI for 12 years and fine of Rs.1,20,000/and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 4 years.
3 / 7
appreciate the evidence and documents available on record in its true perspective. The learned trial court failed to appreciate this fact that the house from which the alleged tree of ganja was seized in the exclusive possession of the appellant belongs to the appellant and no document in this regard has been filed by the prosecution to demonstrate that appellant is the owner of the said house. The seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, despite that the appellant has been convicted. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the mandatory sections of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act have not been complied by the prosecution. The learned trial court measured the ganja weighing 68 kg, whereas total 904 tree of ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellant, as such the correct measurement of the same was not done, hence the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is liable to be set- aside.
4 / 7
prosecution examined 11 witnesses, whereas the defence did not examine any witness in its support. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
5 / 7
sample memo is Ex-P/13 and he admitted his signature on C to C Part. In the cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he does not know about cannabis tree and when police personnel told him about the same then he knew. Vijay Yadav (PW-7) denied having knowledge about the incident and he only admitted his enclosed photo as Ex-P/27 and panchnama (Ex-P/28) and also admitted his signatures on the same. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution.
6 / 7
“6. The above evidence is to be appreciated in the background of other evidence on record. Appellant Alakh Ram, his father and brothers owned 70 bighas of land. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that the property from which the ganja plants were uprooted belonged to appellant Alakh Ram exclusively. The witnesses who were examined in support of the prosecution also have not given any evidence to show that this property belongs to appellant Alakh Ram. There is no satisfactory evidence, either oral or documentary, to show that the appellant has a right over the property from which the ganja plants were recovered. There is no evidence that the appellant cultivated these ganja plants............................”
7 / 7
Sd/Sd/Rajani Dubey Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Judge
Nirala
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved that the seized cannabis plants were cultivated by and in the exclusive possession of the appellant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Ram vs State of U.P.Relied on¶9
(2004) 1 SCC 766 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kunwar Sai Pahadi Korwa
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
