Justice R.S. Garg ruled that the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession of the contraband and faulted the trial court for convicting the accused on facts not covered by the charge or Section 313 CrPC examination.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the conviction of a truck driver accused of carrying opium, finding that the trial court convicted him on unproven and procedurally defective grounds.
Delivering judgment on July 13, 2001, in Dalvinder Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001 Local Law (CG) 68), Justice R.S. Garg allowed the appeal and set aside the 10-year sentence imposed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Dalvinder Singh had been accused of carrying nine grams of opium allegedly recovered during a police search in Kharasia on June 8, 1994. According to the prosecution, Station House Officer Satyendra Pandey (P.W. 6) intercepted Singh’s truck after it failed to stop at a checkpoint. On searching the appellant’s purse, police claimed to have found opium wrapped in plastic along with some money.
Singh denied the charge and pleaded innocence.
The trial court convicted him, but Justice Garg found the entire case riddled with inconsistencies.
“The trial court recorded that the prosecution failed to establish recovery of opium from the accused’s purse. Yet it went on to hold that the opium was found in the truck in his possession. This finding is contrary to the record and beyond the prosecution’s own case,” Justice Garg observed.
The High Court noted that the trial court had framed a specific charge alleging that opium was found on the person of the accused — in his purse — but later convicted him on the ground that the drug was found in the truck. No alternative charge or question was put to the accused regarding this during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“When a particular charge is framed, the accused is required to answer only that charge. It is the duty of the court to put every incriminating circumstance to him. The trial court failed to do so,” the judgment stated.
Justice Garg also pointed out that another person, Balvinder Singh, was present in the truck, and the prosecution had filed separate cases against both. The evidence, therefore, did not establish that Dalvinder Singh had exclusive possession of the contraband.
The High Court reviewed the testimony of key witnesses and found their statements contradictory and unreliable. Independent witness Sanjay Agrawal (P.W. 3) stated that he was informed of the purse’s seizure but did not see the opium being recovered. Another witness, Trilokchand Sharma (P.W. 4), could not confirm whether the opium was found in the accused’s pocket or the truck and admitted uncertainty about whether the seized items were sealed properly.
Given these contradictions and the lack of procedural compliance, Justice Garg held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
“The prosecution failed in proving that the accused kept nine grams of opium in his purse or that he had exclusive possession of the contraband. The conviction cannot stand,” the Court ruled.
Dalvinder Singh, who had been in jail since his conviction, was ordered to be released immediately, unless required in any other case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dalvinder Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
- Judge: Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: July 13, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law (CG) 68
- Equivalent Citations: 2002 CrLJ 1434, 2001 4 MPHT (Chh) 9, 2001 2 BilasLJ 259
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 1994
- Subject: Criminal / Narcotics / NDPS Act
- Acts Referred:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8, 18
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 313, 374(1)
- Advocates: Awadh Tripathi (for Appellant), Praful Bharat (for State)
- Final Decision: Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted; appeal allowed
