Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, July 13: High Court set aside the trial court verdict awarding sentence to the accused in drug trafficking cases by observing that the findings of trial court in convicting the accused are grossly perverse.
The accused Mohammad Ayoub Wani was convicted for offences under NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs 20000. “…it is clear that there was no legally admissible evidence on record before the trial court to record a finding of guilt against the appellant. The observations and findings recorded by the learned trial court against the appellant are grossly perverse, to say the least. The same are not sustainable in law and deserve to be set aside”, Justice Sanjay Dhar concluded.
The case of the prosecution was that in 2008, the police received an information from reliable sources that the appellant-Wani along with co-accused Mohammad Shakoor Khatana, Mohammad Imran Bhat and Feroz Ahmad Lone, under a well-knit conspiracy, are in the process of smuggling a huge quantity of Charas which they have concealed in the body of the vehicle to some place out of State.
As per the information, the Charas was proposed to be smuggled by the appellant-Wani and the co-accused to Ahmadabad, Mumbai et. and the money that would be received in this connection would be used in militant activities. On the basis of this information, FIR No.03/2008 for offences under Section 20/28/29 of NDPS Act was registered with Police Station, CIK, Srinagar.
After investigation of the case, offences under Section 20/28/29 of NDPS Act were found established against the appellant and the co-accused and the chargesheet was laid before the trial court. The trial court, after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the recovery of charas from the vehicle in question has been established and that connection of the appellant and co-accused with the transportation of the charas has also been established from the evidence on record as such convicted all the accused including the appellant for offences under Section 20/28/29 of NDPS Act.
Court has set aside the conviction on the ground that the trial court has convicted the appellant-Wani only on the basis of the confessional statements made by co-accused Feroz and Imran as also the confessional statement of the appellant which he is stated to have made before the Investigating Officer.
Justice Dhar said that a confessional statement made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the statements of co-accused Feroz Ahmad and Imran made before the police officer that they were carrying charas on behalf of the appellant-Wani, are not admissible in evidence.
“Similarly, the statement of the appellant made to the Investigation Officer that he is owner of the vehicle that was seized along with charas and that he was co-owner of the recovered charas is also not admissible in evidence”, court added.
Court further said the confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. “Thus, a confessional statement made by an accused in custody of police which leads to discovery of a fact is inadmissible in evidence”, Court recorded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel