HC lets man walk free after finding flaw in trial court verdict
Cuttack: The Orissa high court has indicted a trial court for acknowledging only the evidence of those witnesses that reiterated the prosecution’s case the basis of conviction in a narcotics case and sentencing a man to 10 years imprisonment.
The high court took strong exception to the trial court’s failure in appreciating the submissions made before it vis-à-vis the legal position and acquitted the man on charges of illegally transporting contraband ganja, after he had spent six-and-a-half years in jail.
The man, Sanjay Kumar Behera, was named accused in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at the Handapa police station on January 24, 2014, the day two bags loaded with 50 kg ganja were seized from his possession.
After trial, he was convicted in the narcotics case and sentenced to 10 years in prison with a fine of Rs 10 lakh by the court of additional sessions-cum-special judge, Angul, on May 4, 2016. The man had filed a criminal appeal against the trial court verdict in HC the same year. Advocate Sanjib Kumar Swain and advocate Sudhir Kumar Patra argued on his behalf in a case of false implication.
A single judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi held that the trial court had proceeded on a single track and merely relied upon the evidence of those witnesses which reiterated the prosecution’s case in order to reach a quick conclusion and render a guilty verdict.
“The trial court ought to have taken note of other facts and circumstances of the case which have the quality of a deafening silence and point unerringly at another probability,” Justice Panigrahi observed in his July 17 order, a copy of which was available on Tuesday.
On perusal of evidence, the high court held that the trial court had glossed over material irregularities during search and seizure operation and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case that had resulted in non-compliance of the statutory safeguards provided under the NDPS Act.
“It is settled law that in cases where the legislation provides for stringent and harsh punishments, when there is a possibility that another view may be possible, where a benefit of doubt might accrue to the accused, in such case it is imperative that those should be examined with extra care and caution,” Justice Panigrahi observed while setting aside the trial court conviction and sentence.
EoM