Partly allowed

Manjeet Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2017CRLA/431/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction of appellant Baaj Singh as the only evidence against him was the inadmissible confession of his co-accused, citing Supreme Court precedents. It upheld the conviction of Manjeet Singh but reduced his sentence from 15 to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Baaj Singh acquitted of Section 8/18(b) charge. Appellant Manjeet Singh conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to 10 years R.I. and Rs.1 lac fine.

Manjeet Singh Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 430 / 2012

¶3

Baaj Singh s/o Sohan Singh b/c Jatsikh, R/o Bawadi Khera PS Talera Distt Bundi (Raj.)

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 431 / 2012 Manjeet Singh s/o Sohan Singh b/c Jatsikh, R/o Bawadi Khera PS Talera Distt Bundi (Raj.)

¶10

----Appellant ----Respondent

¶11

State of Rajasthan ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.M.L.Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.K.Bohra, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order

¶13

05/09/2017

¶14

These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26.4.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.27/2008 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 years R.I. each.

¶15

The case set up by the prosecution is that the S.H.O. P.S. Hanumangarh Town was conducting routine Nakabandi and Gasht with the Police party in the night of 22.6.2008. At about 11 PM, the party reached the Gaggarnali Kalwad and saw two persons coming on foot from the direction of Hanumangarh Town. One of these persons was carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing the Police

¶16

(2 of 7)

¶17

[CRLA-430/2012] [ CRLA-431/2012]

¶18

vehicle, these persons tried to escape through a Kaccha road. Looking to their suspicious conduct, they were pursued and apprehended. The person holding the bag disclosed his name to

¶19

be Manjeet Singh whereas the other identified himself as Baaj Singh. They could not provide any satisfactory explanation for their attempt to escape on seeing the Police party. Upon this, the S.H.O. made further inquiry from these persons. Manjeet Singh disclosed that the bag held by him was containing opium. The S.H.O. sent a Constable Baljit Singh to summon independent persons for associating in the search proceedings. Two independent Motbirs namely Sukhvinder Singh and Jagraj Singh were brought and search conducted. The requisite formalities under the NDPS Act viz. giving of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act etc. were followed and then, the bag held by Manjeet Singh was searched. It was found containing suspected opium weighing 7.400 Kgs. with the metal container. The substance tested positive for opium on checking with the DD kit. Manjeet Singh and Baaj Singh could not provide any licence or permit for possession of the recovered opium on which both were arrested for commission of offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act. Charge-sheet was filed against them for that very offence. The trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution

¶20

(3 of 7)

¶21

[CRLA-430/2012] [ CRLA-431/2012]

¶22

allegations but did not lead any evidence in defence. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Special Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellants as above holding that both the accused persons were in conscious possession of the contraband opium. The accused have challenged their conviction recorded by the trial court by way of these two appeals.

¶23

Shri M.L.Bishnoi learned counsel representing both the appellants did not seriously challenge the conviction of the appellant Manjeet Singh but prayed that he has remained in custody for a period well in excess of 9 years and thus, a lenient view be taken on the question of sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Shri Bishnoi contended that Manjeet Singh does not have any criminal antecedents and the minimum sentence of 10 years R.I. would serve the ends of justice because the accused has remained in custody for more than 9 years. So far as the accused appellant Baaj Singh is concerned, Shri Bishnoi relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Rashid Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001)9 SCC 578 and Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan & anr. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2004)13 SCC 608 and contended that conviction of appellant Baaj Singh for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained because apart from the allegation that he was walking besides Manjeet Singh, the prosecution has not come out with any evidence against Baaj singh so as to make him liable for possession of the contraband narcotic. He, therefore, implored the

(4 of 7)

CRLA-430/2012]

CRLA-431/2012]

Court to accept the appeal of Baaj Singh while setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court to his extent.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bishnoi and urged that opium weighing 7.400 kgs which is well above the commercial quantity was recovered from the bag being held by the accused Manjeet Singh. The appellant Baaj Singh is the brother of Manjeet Singh and thus, can be imputed conscious knowledge of the contraband article being carried by his brother. The accused persons are residents of Bundi and could not offer any explanation for being found in possession of such huge quantity of opium in Hanumangarh Town at odd hours in the night. Thus, he urged that no leniency is called for on the aspect of sentences awarded to Manjeet Singh. He further submitted that the trial court committed no error whatsoever in convicting the appellant Baaj Singh for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act and urged that his appeal should also be dismissed.

¶29

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶30

Firstly, I proceed to take up the appeal of Baaj Singh.

¶31

The trial court framed charge against the appellant Baaj Singh for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act. Any person, who contravenes the provisions of the Act in relation to opium poppy by producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing, exporting or using opium is

¶32

(5 of 7)

¶33

[CRLA-430/2012] [ CRLA-431/2012]

¶34

covered and punishable under the said provision. Apparently, Baaj Singh while walking besides Manjeet Singh was not indulged in any of these activities. The better choice for the prosecution would have been to seek his prosecution for the offence under Section 8/18 read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act which deals with conspiracy/abetment for the principal offence. There is no such material on the record of the case which can satisfy the Court that Baaj Singh was having conscious knowledge of the opium being concealed in the bag held by Manjeet Singh. In addition to the fact that the accused are brothers, the only material piece of evidence available with the prosecution for proving the case against Baaj Singh was the confessional statement of Manjeet Singh recorded by the Seizure Officer, which is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever as being hit by provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Facts and circumstances of the Supreme Court Judgments in the cases of Abdul Rashid and Sorabhkhan (supra) relied upon by Shri Bishnoi apply squarely to the case at hand and hence, I am of the firm opinion that conviction of Baaj Singh appellant in this case for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act as recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination.

¶35

Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2012 deserves to be and is hereby set aside to the extent, conviction of the appellant Baaj Singh was recorded for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶36

The appeal No.430/2012 preferred on behalf of appellant

(6 of 7)

[CRLA-430/2012]

[ CRLA-431/2012]

Baaj Singh is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 8/18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶41

Now coming to the case of Manjeet Singh. Shri M.L.Bishnoi did not seriously challenge the conviction of Manjeet Singh and rightly so. On going through the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has led foolproof, cogent and clinching evidence to establish the fact that Manjeet Singh was in conscious possession of illicit opium weighing 7.400 Kgs. No legal or technical flaw is noticeable in the process of search and seizure carried out by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of the witnesses is also beyond reproach. Thus, the conviction of the appellant Manjeet Singh as recorded by the trial court is unassailable. The prosecution has not placed on record any material to show that any previous case under the NDPS Act had been registered against Manjeet Singh accused who has remained in custody for a period well in excess of 9 years. Since it is the first offence committed by Manjeet Singh and considering the weight of the contraband recovered, I am of the opinion that the sentence of 15 years’ R.I. and fine of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded to him by the trial court for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act is rather excessive and harsh and the same deserves to be reduced.

¶42

Consequently, the appeal No.431/2012 preferred on behalf of the appellant Manjeet Singh is allowed in part. While affirming his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act vide judgment dated 26.4.2012, the sentence awarded to him by the trial court is

(7 of 7)

[CRLA-430/2012]

[ CRLA-431/2012]

modified and reduced to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1 lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant Manjeet Singh shall further undergo 6 months’ R.I.

¶47

Record be returned forthwith.

¶48

A copy of this judgment be placed in both the files.

¶49

/tarun goyal/

¶50

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

Manjeet Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. a. K. Chittora Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. G. S. Bhardwaj Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. Sudha Mathur Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Smt. Neelam Bhatia Vs Mangilal

Sudhir Kumar Vs Rashid Ali

State Vs Shantilal