GANGADHAR ALIAS GANGARAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 05-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
GANGADHAR ALIAS GANGARAM
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2020)
AUGUST 05, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.8C r/w. s. 20(b)(ii)(c) – Appellant was convicted u/s. 8C r/w. s.
20(b)(ii)(c) of the 1985 Act for the recovery of 48 Kgs 200 gms.
cannabis (ganja) and sentenced for 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment – The appellant was held to be owner of the house by
the courts below, from where cannabis was recovered – Appellant’s
defence that he had sold the said house to the co-accused was
rejected – Held: The appellant had produced the sale agreement
dated 12.06.2009 of the property in question with promptness –
The said document was never investigated for its genuineness by
the police and neither panchayat records were verified – The
appellant was held guilty and convicted in view of his name being
recorded as the owner of the house in the voters list 2008, ignoring
the fact that sale agreement was subsequent to the same on
12.06.2009 – The prosecution cannot be held to have proved the
sale agreement as fabricated and fictitious document – Further, no
appeal was preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of
the co-accused – In view of the nature of evidence available it is
not possible to hold that the prosecution had established conscious
possession of the house with the appellant so as to attribute the
presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery
of the contraband – There was gross misappreciation of evidence
by the courts below and the police investigation was extremely
casual, perfunctory and shoddy in nature – Therefore, the conviction
of the appellant is unsustainable and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The police being in a quandary with regard to
the ownership and possession of the house in question due to a
flawed, defective and incomplete investigation found it
convenient to implicate the appellant also, sanguine that at least
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 173
173
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
one of the two would be convicted. It is rightly submitted that
according to normal human prudence, it stands to reason why
the appellant who was residing in his new house for the last 15
years would identify his own erstwhile house as that of the accused,
be a witness to the breaking of the lock and recovery to implicate
himself. [Para 11][178-B-C]
2. The appellant had produced the sale agreement, Exhibit
P.28 with promptness the very next day of recovery of contraband.
It was never investigated for its genuineness by the police and
neither were the panchayat records verified. The panchayat
records are public documents and would have been the best
evidence to establish the ownership and possession of the house.
Despite the best evidence being available the police considered
it sufficient to obtain a certificate Exhibit P-37 signed by P.W. 14
who acknowledged her signature but denied knowledge of the
contents of the certificate. The voters list entry of 2008 being
prior to the sale is of no consequence. It is not without reason
that the co-accused had absconded. [Para 12][178-D-E]
3. The appellant was held guilty and convicted in view of
his name being recorded as the owner of the house in the voters
list 2008, ignoring the fact that sale agreement was subsequent
to the same on 12.06.2009. The prosecution cannot be held to
have proved that Exhibit P-18 was a fabricated and fictitious
document. No appeal has been preferred by the prosecution
against the acquittal of the co-accused. [Para 13][178-F-G]
4. In view of the nature of evidence available it is not
possible to hold that the prosecution had established conscious
possession of the house with the appellant so as to attribute the
presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to
recovery of the contraband. Conviction could not be based on a
foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude on a
preponderance of probabilities, the guilt of the appellant without
establishing the same beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 14]
[178-G-H; 179-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
504 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2019 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of
2012.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG, Puneet Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain,
Ms. Christi Jain, Sunny Choudhary, Harsh Parashar Advs. for the
appearing parti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.