Allowed

Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2019CRL.A/228/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal, acquitting the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and sample between the date of seizure and laboratory analysis, rendering the chemical analysis report inadmissible for conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.228 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 826/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JJUDGE, (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA DATED 08-01-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

KUNJUMON

¶9

AGED 1 YEARS S/O BHASKARAN, KURUNGATTUVAYAL, PERINGALA VILLAGE,, MENAMBALY MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

CRL.A.No.228 of 2007

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Sections 55 (a) and 8 (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 1-12-2002 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of two litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that eventhough the contraband was seized on 1-12-2002, the crime was registered only on the next day and in the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶23

It appears that PW5 detected the offence. PW5 also arrested the appellant and seized the contraband.

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

CRL.A.No.228 of 2007

¶26

PW5 had drawn the sample from the contraband. Thereafter, PW5 handed over the records and the material objects to the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara, along with the accused. PW3 also accompanied PW5 at the time of detection of the offence. He also supported the evidence of PW5 with regard to all material aspects. PW3 also stated that the material objects and the contemporary records were handed over to the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara along with the accused. PW2 was the Excise Range Inspector who registered the crime.

¶27

PW2 stated that on 2-12-2002, he collected the records, material objects and the accused from the person who was on duty on that day. PW2 clearly stated that the material objects were in the custody of the person who was on duty on that day. However, the said person, who was on duty on that day, was not examined before the Court to prove the safe custody of the sample and the contraband. No explanation was also given by the prosecution as to why the person, who had received the contraband, sample and the accused, was not examined before the Court. In the absence of evidence with regard

¶28

-: 4 :-

¶29

CRL.A.No.228 of 2007

¶30

to the safe custody of the sample and the contraband from 1-12-2002 till the receipt of the same by PW2 on 2-12-2002, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample drawn from the contraband was the sample produced before the court and analysed in the Laboratory. In the said circumstances, there cannot be any link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analysed in the Laboratory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext. P5 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶31

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶32

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶33

Ani/

¶34

/true copy/

Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Peyoos Vs State of Kerala

Yasodha Vs State of Kerala

Lekshmanan @ Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Kusan Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs State of Kerala