In a recent and groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has nullified the conviction of an appellant involved in a contraband possession case, citing serious procedural irregularities. The court emphasized that the failure to present material circumstances during the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounted to a significant and fundamental flaw.
The court stated, “By neglecting to address the material circumstances crucial to the appellant’s case, a severe prejudice has been inflicted on the appellant’s defense. While the appellant might not have previously raised concerns about the inadequacy of the examination under Section 313 of CrPC, in this instance, the omission strikes at the core of the matter. It is a substantial and fundamental error committed by the Court as the appellant’s examination failed to encompass vital circumstances under Section 313 of CrPC.”
Furthermore, the court acknowledged the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, who had spent over five years in jail for a case dating back to 2001. Subjecting the appellant to further examination, after more than two decades, was deemed prejudicial.
The court expressed, “With the appellant having endured imprisonment for five and a half years, re-examining him under Section 313 of CrPC after more than twenty-two years would undeniably prejudice him. Consequently, the failure to present two relevant circumstances during the appellant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC renders the prosecution case untenable. Therefore, we hold that the appellant’s conviction cannot be upheld on this basis.”
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, presided over the appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision. The High Court had upheld the conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, sentencing the appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The case involved Assistant Sub Inspector Dhian Singh, who, acting on secret information, identified contraband parcels at Ambala station. The parcels, destined for Kurail Railway Station, contained ten bags, each holding 20 kgs of poppy straw. Despite the recovery during transit, the Special Court ruled that those in possession of the railway receipt exercised control over the illegal substances, constituting conscious possession.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the case highlighted the failure to present key circumstances against the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized that crucial circumstances, such as the appellant’s inquiry about contraband parcels at the railway station, were not addressed during the examination. Additionally, the fact that the railway receipt was in the appellant’s name was also omitted.
Drawing from the principles established in the Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) case, the court underscored the duty of the trial court to distinctly and separately present each material circumstance against the accused. The court asserted that the failure to do so constitutes a serious irregularity, capable of vitiating the trial if proven to prejudice the accused.
In this specific case, the court ruled that the two circumstances alleged against the appellant must be excluded from consideration. With no other material connecting the appellant to the offense, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and released the appellant.
This decision emphasizes the court’s commitment to fair legal procedures and the protection of defendants’ rights in criminal cases.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
