TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER

CASE ANALYSIS OF NDPS ACT CASES

By
NAME OF THE STUDENT: SARVARAYUDU AMBATI
ROLL NO.: 2016088
SEMESTER: 8TH

NAME OF THE PROGRAM: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

NAME OF THE FACULTY MEMBER: VARALAKSHMI MADAM

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to sincerely thank my faculty for Forensic Law VARALAKSHMI ma’am for
giving me this topic and guiding me throughout the project through this undertaking I have
taken in a ton about the previously mentioned subject and this thus has helped me develop as
an understudy.
BRIEFLY ABOUT THE NDPS ACT

In recent years, the drug disease has spread to almost all spheres of public life and has had a
series of devastating effects in the societies where it has spread most. The reason why drug
abuse is seen as a problem much more serious than any other social evil is because it is
inextricably linked to other crimes such as organized crime, human trafficking and money
laundering, as well as health threats such as HIV - AIDS.India has a long history of using
cannabis and opium in a social, spiritual and therapeutic context.  The severity of the problem
can be judged from statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
which show that drugs and drugs worth Rs 19.51 crore and Rs 17.05 crore were intercepted in
2010 and 2009 respectively. The problem is particularly serious. in the states of Punjab and
Manipur, where estimates show around 18,000 and 25,000 IDUs, respectively. 

Review of drug control laws in India

The genesis of drug control laws in India can be traced back to the Opium Act of 1857. This
was followed by the Opium Act of 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1930. These laws
were developed to regulate and monitor the use of certain specific drugs in restricted contexts
; they were not based on any strict rules and did not contain any overarching provisions to
address drug addiction as a whole. In addition, there were modest penalties for their offenses,
amounting to three years 'imprisonment for the first offender and four years' imprisonment
for recidivists. In the post-World War II period, countries began working together to
implement human rights instruments that would enable individuals to live with dignity and
respect. The clearest manifestation of this general principle in the context of health can be
found in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 12 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which aim to promote the
highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. In this context, several
international instruments, such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and, more
importantly, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, explicitly recognized the need
for regimes and regulatory systems to address drug abuse. To bring India's drug control law
into line with international standards and to meet the goals of these treaties, the Government
of India passed the National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985. The act is
generally considered to be a prohibition law which aims to deal with 2 types of crimes:
trafficking in prohibited substances, ie cultivation, production, distribution and sale, and their
consumption.              

Establishment of specialized courts

When the NDPS Act was in its infancy, cases involving the crimes set out in the Act were
heard by ordinary session courts. However, this has exacerbated the problem of judicial
overload that has plagued Indian courts for decades. To address this problem, the
Government of India, with the revision of the NDPS Act of 1989, paved the way for the
establishment of specialized courts dealing with the crimes set out in this Act. Knot. 36 of the
Act authorizes the government to establish as many special courts as it deems appropriate for
the rapid resolution of disputes. The Special Court consists of one judge who is appointed
with the approval of the President of the Supreme Court of the respective Court and who
must be either a Session judge or a Supplementary Hearing judge at the time of his
appointment. A special court has the same powers as a magistrate when cases are referred to
it. The Special Court shall have the power to investigate an offense specified by law on the
basis of a notification from the appropriate police authority or a complaint by central or state
government officials who are entitled to make such complaints. While special courts have
played a key role in the effective implementation of the NDPS Act, they have not been able
to develop effective strategies to deal with the systemic challenges faced by courts across the
country. For example, although Mumbai has 8 special courts, most cases only go to court
after 2-3 years.         

Overview of the most important offenses and penalties

The amount of the penalty under the NDPS Act is based on the amount of drugs found, which
fall into 3 categories: small, less than commercial and commercial. As a result, the penalty
can be as low as a stringent prison sentence of up to one year if the drugs found are in small
amounts, and up to 20 years in prison for a large amount of drugs. The amount of small and
commercial quantities is determined by the central government. The amounts of some
common drugs are as follows: A. Amphetamine: low amount - 2 grams, commercial amount -
50 grams. B. Cocaine: small amount - 2 grams, commercial amount - 100 grams. C. Codeine:
small amount - 10 grams, commercial amount - 1 kg. D. Ganja : small quantity - 1 kg,
commercial quantity - 20 kg. E. Heroin: small amount - 5 grams, commercial amount - 250
grams. F. Morphine: small amount - 5 grams, commercial amount - 250 grams. G. Poppy
straw: small amount - 1 kg, commercial amount - 50 kg. Knot. 8 of the Act expressly
prohibits the cultivation of opium, poppy seeds, coca or cannabis, as well as the production,
manufacture, distribution, including storage, transport, purchase and sale of prohibited drugs
and psychotropic substances. It also prohibits their financing, as well as the consumption
and concealment of criminals guilty under the law. According to sec. 19, any farmer who
grows opium in accordance with the permit, but defrauds it, will be severely imprisoned for
10 to 20 years, and will also be fined Rs. 1 and 2 lakh rupees. The production, manufacture,
possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import and export between the countries or the use
of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, such as poppy straw, the prepared opium
poppy, cannabis, etc. The result: a. In the case of a small quantity, severe imprisonment of up
to one year with / without a fine of up to Rs. 10,000; b. In case the quantity is between small
and commercial, severe imprisonment up to 10 years and fine up to Rs. 1 lakh; and c. For
commercial quantity cases, severe 10 to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 and 2 lakh
rupees. However, if the violation concerns ganja , the penalty would be much smaller, ie
Severe imprisonment for up to 5 years and a fine of up to Rs. 50,000. In all the above-
mentioned cases, the court may increase the penalty, noting the justification in
the judgment . 23, any person who deals with the illegal import / export / transhipment of
narcotic drugs / psychotropic substances is punishable by a penalty of 1 to 20 years
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2 lakh based on the amount of the prohibited
substance. Knot. 24 clearly states that any person who engages in external contacts in
violation of the Act is punishable by a severe imprisonment of 10 to 20 years and a fine of 1-
2 lakh rupees. Anyone who knowingly permits the use of their premises to commit an offense
specified by law will be punished with a severe imprisonment of 10 to 20 years and a fine of
1 to 2 lakh rupees. Anyone who finances illicit trade or conceals the perpetrator is also
subject to the same penalty. In the event that a person consumes a narcotic or psychotropic
substance; the punishment would vary depending on the substance consumed. If the
substance consumed is cocaine, morphine or diacetylmorphine, the punishment would be
severe and imprisoned for up to 1 year with or without a fine of up to Rs. 20,000. If the
accused consumes any other substance, he will face a severe imprisonment of up to six
months with or without a fine of up to Rs. 10,000. The court has the power to send any
person imprisoned for drug use to an appropriate medical facility for treatment. Drug
agencies are required to properly destroy them in certain ways. Moreover, if it is found that
the accused has any illegal property, these are forfeited to the central government. Proceeds
from the sale of illegally acquired real estate will be transferred to the National Drug Control
Fund in order to facilitate drug treatment and support initiatives to combat drugs.   

  

        
  
   
  
                             

Penalty for repeated offenses

As drug abuse is often a habitual problem for those who engage in it, the law imposes much
stricter penalties on recidivists. Generally speaking, the penalty for a repeat offense can be up
to 1.5 times the penalty for the first offense. As a result, the sentence will range from 1.5
years of severe imprisonment to 30 years of severe imprisonment depending on the severity
of the crime. Likewise, the amount of the fine for a subsequent conviction would also be 1.5
times the fine for the first offense. One provision on penalties for second convictions that was
hotly debated concerned the death penalty contained in Art. 31A of the Act. Before the 2014
amendment, the act provided for the death penalty when the amount of drugs for an offense
committed after the first conviction exceeded a certain threshold. For example, the threshold
is 10 kg for opium and 1 kg for morphine and heroin. However, as part of a move that has
been widely adopted by the human rights community, the 2014 amendment has made it clear
that the death penalty may be imposed as a substitute for other penalties that have been set
out in the law for recidivism; its use is optional. Many experts have repeatedly advocated the
complete removal of the death penalty from the NDPS Act. He argues that the purpose of
punishment is to take life for a crime that does not lead to the taking of life. Currently, reports
indicate that drug control laws in 32 countries provide for the death penalty in rare
cases. However, a closer look at the drug markets in these countries shows that the death
penalty has not acted as a sufficient deterrent to prevent the clandestine practices that these
laws are designed to control.              

Procedural safeguards in the NDPS Act

As the NDPS Act gives law enforcement authorities extensive powers to combat drug abuse,
it also tries to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent
civilians. Anyone who makes an arrest or seizure under the Act is therefore required to
produce a comprehensive report containing all relevant information to be sent to their line
manager. Likewise, ch. 100 of the CRPC states that any police officer wishing to search any
person believed to be hiding something suspicious must only do so in the presence of at least
2 respected residents of that locality, known as panchas . The accused should then be
presented with a statement containing the details of the search and seizure, signed
by panchas  . Knot. 55 of the NDPS Act requires a police officer to stop prohibited substances
for the purpose of their safe containment. They must bear the seal of the officer who arrested
them, as well as the officer of the police commander. Knot. 50 of the Act gives the accused
the right to search in the presence of a justice of the peace or an official. This right was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of the Punjab V. Balbir Singh 1994 AIR 1872 case,
which found that the police officer must necessarily inform the accused of this right. Finally,
chap. 58 imposes severe penalties on those who make vicious or frivolous
complaints.                        

Drug addiction rehabilitation

Another area where the law has been heavily criticized is the limited importance it attaches to
the health of drug users who require special care and treatment. The law only focuses on drug
supply reduction; the argument is, not to establish a solid framework to reduce their demand,
which would be a more sustainable solution in the long run. To solve this problem, the 2014
amendment aims to strengthen the existing provisions on the creation and operation of
centers for the identification and treatment of addicts. The amendment focuses on managing
people addicted to drugs and paves the way for the accreditation of treatment centers by the
relevant government authorities. Treatment centers need to adopt global harm reduction
practices and techniques to address this problem in a systematic and holistic manner.        

Section 20, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. : 

   Penalty for offenses against cannabis and hemp.

Who, contrary to any provisions of this Act, regulations, orders or conditions of

the license granted therein , 

a) grows any hemp plant; or 

b) produces, produces, owns, sells, buys, transports, imports interstate, exports interstate, or
uses cannabis is punishable. 

( i ) if such breach concerns clause (a) carries a severe term of imprisonment of up to ten
years and is punishable by a fine up to one lakh rupee; and   

(ii) if such breach relates to sub-paragraph (b),

(A) and involves a small amount, a severe term of imprisonment of up to  [one year] or a fine
2 

that can be up to ten thousand rupees, or both   

 

(B) for less than a commercial but more than a small quantity, shall be severely imprisoned
for up to ten years and a fine that may be up to one lakh rupee;
 

(C) and includes a commercial quantity, shall be severely imprisoned for a term of not less
than ten years but may be up to twenty years, and shall be punishable by a fine which may
not be less than one lakh rupees but which may be up to two lakh rupees :

Provided that the court may, for the reasons described in the judgment, impose a fine in
excess of two lakh rupees.

RENU GOGAR V STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

FACTS:

The appellant, a Nepalese national, challenged her conviction under section 20 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, in short the 'Act', issued by a court in
trial no. 01 of 2007, under which she was convicted is punishable by imprisonment for ten
years and a fine of one alcohol, and in the event of failure to pay the fine, then subject to a
severe penalty of imprisonment for a period of one year for allegedly possessing 8
kg. with charas . In short, this can be used to present a prosecutor's case. On 13.6.2006, PW-3
ASI Lal Man with PW-2 Constable Chaman Lal Chaman Lal and others from the Home
Guards, was on patrol and detection of crimes in the forest Garahan- Nullah, under the
jurisdiction of Police Post Manikarn , District Kullu , HP Around 5.15 am, the Appellant was
spotted walking from the opposite direction through the horse path through the woods,
carrying a bag on her back. Upon seeing the police party, she tried to escape, which aroused
suspicion. That's why she was stopped. The police asked about her identity. As the police
were concerned that the contraband might be transported in this way, PW-2 officer Chaman
Lal was dispatched to find an independent witness. After a while he returned and told ASI
Lal Man he couldn't find any witnesses. So PW-3 ASI Lal Man linked PW-2 HHC Hem Raj
and PW-2 Chaman Lal as witnesses in the case. PW-3 ASI Lal Man undertook to search the
said witnesses in the presence of the Appellant, but no incriminating article was found in his
possession. For this purpose, the memo Ext. PA was prepared . Although it was not yet
required, the appellant was given the opportunity to search her bag in the presence of a
magistrate or official. She agreed that the police would search her bag. For this purpose, a
note of consent ext. PB was also prepared , after which the PW3 ASI Lal Man performed a
bag search of the Appellant and recovered 8 kg. charas , placed in a polyethylene envelope,
packed in two green colored pieces of cloth.PW-3 ASI Lal Man separated two samples of 25
grams of each recovered material, each separately sealed with a seal that gave the impression
of the letter "h" of the English alphabet and the remainder was also sealed with the
polyethylene wrap and cloth in this bag with the same seal. The NCB forms in triplicate were
completed and the stamp was taken on a piece of Ext. PF. The case was taken into
possession, see memo ext. PC. After its use, the seal was handed over to PW-1 HHC Hem
Raj. The appellant was arrested and the basis for the arrest of Wew, and PD was
informed. Ruka Ext. PG was sent to the Kullu Police Station to register the case , on the basis
of which FIR Ext. PM has been formally registered. For this purpose, the endorsement was
given by PW-6 SI / SHO Mohinder Singh. The appellant was lodged with the Jari Post
Office where her personal search engine was conducted by police officer Ms Chandra Devi
but nothing incriminating was found on her personal search. ASI Lal Man produced the
applicant along with the property case before PW-6 SI SHO Mohinder Singh. He resealed all
three packages with his seal, which gave the impression of the letter "T" of the English
alphabet. The "T" stamp imprint samples were also taken separately. Memo Ext. For this
purpose, an OP was prepared. He completed columns 9 to 11 of the KBC forms to be
prepared on the spot in triplicate, after which SI / SHO Mohinder Singh handed over to PW
the assets of the case together with the NCBs in triplicate and other related documents. -10
Addl. MHC Jia Lal at 3pm the same day to make a deposit in Malkhana . One of the
packages with samples was sent by constable PW11 Pawan Kumar on 8.6.2006 with a sample
of the seal, NCB forms in triplicate for analysis to CFSL Hyderabad, see RC No. 172/2006,
but the said Laboratory did not accept this sample due to that they had not accepted the
sample from Himachal Pradesh for analysis as such on July 19, 2006, the sample and
documents were returned to PW-4 MHC Roop Singh at the same location. After about two
months, ie on September 26, 2006, PW-4 Roop Singh re-sent the sample packet along with
the KBC forms and other relevant documents for analysis to the Director of the Central
Forensic Laboratory of Chandigarh via PW8 Constable Diwan Chand. It was deposited at the
above-mentioned Laboratory on September 27, 2006. The sample was analyzed in the above-
mentioned Laboratory. The result was positive and the report of this effect is
Ext. PR. Following the investigation, Challan was brought to trial for the appellant's
hearing. The appellant was charged with the above-mentioned offense to which she had not
pleaded guilty and requested a hearing. To prove their case, the prosecution investigated PW-
3 ASI Lal Man, PW-1 Hem Raj, PW-2 Chaman Lal, PW-6 SI SHO Mohinder Singh, PW-11
Constable Pawan Kumar and PW-8 Constable Diwan Chand in addition to PW- 4
MHC Roop Singh and PW-10 Addl. MHC Jia Lal. The appellant was also examined under
Art. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She denied any circumstances concerning
her. She took the position that on June 12, 2006 around 19:00 at the bus stop Jari was waiting
for the arrival of the bus with her friend Joon Maya and many other passengers. There were
two unclaimed bags at the bus stop. They were checked by the police and were falsely
implicated in the case on the basis of suspicion. The appellant also had the opportunity to
impose on Joon May a case of a similar nature for the second bag that had not been
collected. When she was called in to defend herself, no evidence was presented. At the end of
the trial, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced as mentioned above, which is
disputed.                                                                                              

Issue:

Is the conviction of the appellant under Art. 20 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances
Act was justified or not?

Reasoning:

As noted above, the only tests the Experts did was to detect tetrahydrocannabinol
or cystolytic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but didn't report the percentage of it in
their reports. While also in the witness, the experts did not say what the percentage of
tetrahydrocannabinol was in the samples. A specific cannabis product category such
as Charas , ganja or blend as defined in section 2 (iii) of the act, or whatever else, such as
bhang etc, can also be specified in relation to the tetrahydrocannabinol percentage in the
thing. As noted above, the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies depending on the
product and the different cannabis product . According to Parikh's Textbook of Medical
Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, bhang is 15% and ganja is around
25%. percent, and in the case of Charas, between 25 and 40 percent. When the report does
not state the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample, nor does any test to determine
whether the material was Charas , i.e. resin, or some other preparation of hemp, it cannot be
said that the material was in fact Charas . When it comes to cystolytic hair, which is
the fiber of the cannabis plant, it must be present in all hemp products. It's quite likely that
the samples came only from bhang, or dried cannabis leaves, which are also expected to
contain 15 percent tetrahydrocannabinol. It is not an offense to possess only cannabis leaves
or seeds as it is only a Charas , ganja or mixture as defined in section 2 (iii) of the Act, which
is an offense under section 20 of the Act. Cannabis leaves and seeds are neither covered by
the definition of charas nor ganja, and rather explicitly excluded from the definition of ganja,
unless they accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant. Contrary to the above
context, it was considered that, in view of the position set out above, we believe that the
expert reports in any of these six cases did not prove that the material recovered from the
appellants / defendants was Charas . The possibility of things recovered from them is only
Bhang, that is, the dried leaves of the cannabis plant, the possession of which is without
offense, can not be ruled out.This case is also quite and squarely covered by the judgment of
Sunil Kumar and other related cases (supra) and, in our opinion, Chemical report Ext. PR is
not related to recovered items and does not prove that the recovered items were charas within
the meaning of the Act.                                           

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence given by the Appellant by the trial court is
unsustainable and is therefore set aside. Consequently, the appeal is admissible. An
applicant , in prison, serving a sentence ordered by the trial court, receives an order for
immediate release in the event that no other case would require her detention. The issue order
should be prepared accordingly.    

Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai et al. 2003 12SCC395

FACTS:

One Jairam (the "deceased") was a teenager when he lost his life in an unfortunate dispute in
which his relatives fought. There were four originally accused, namely Madan Rai (A-
1), Rasbehari (A-2), Sachidanand Rai (A-3) and Janardan Rai (A-4). [Defendant] Modan Rai
is the father of Sachidananda and Rasbehari . The accused - Modan Rai has been accused of
an offense punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. (In short, `` IPC ') for
committing murder of the deceased, and the other three were charged under Section 302 in
connection with Art. IPC, All four defendants were also charged under section 440 of
P.Wyk. For committing wrongs while preparing to get hurt. The date of the event is
5/11/1984. The dispute arose in relation to the installation of the door by the Ramakant
company (the appellant in Crl . A. no. 2032-33 / 96). The deceased, inflicting a gunshot
wound, breathed his last breath on May 12, 1984. According to the informant Siyarama (PW-
1), an event which killed the deceased, was the result of long-standing dispute about
property. A few years before the event, there was a private division between the father of the
deceased and his offspring and the accused - Modan Rai. Madan Rai wanted to lead the north
room out of the rooms where the kittens were tied and which fell to Siyaram , the
informant. Although the door to this room had been removed earlier, the informant wanted to
close it by building a mud wall. On the day of the incident, around 6.30 pm, the
accused Modan Rai arrived with his licensed weapons to the scene
with Sachidanand's sons , Rasbehari and Janardan. Three of them were armed with
lathis. They began to tear down the walls. The present appellants Ramakant Rai
and Siyaram and the deceased asked them not to do so. Madan Rai took out his gun and fired
one shot. The sound of such a gunshot caught the attention of many,
including Bashisht Pandey (PW2), Bhimnath Rai (PW5), and many other villagers who came
to his house, especially to his room, to find out what had happened. The informant, the
deceased and others entered the room where the informant's cats were tied
up . [Defendant] Modan Rai climbed the roof to the west corner of the house with his
pistol. The deceased was in the doorway to the room northwest of his home. Madan Rai fired
a single pistol shot that injured the face of the fallen deceased. According to an informant of
the ghostly incident, Bashisht Pandey (PW2), Bhimnath Rai (PW5) and neighbors were
witnesses . As the deceased's condition worsened, he was taken by tractor to the
hospital in Mohammadbad , information was filed at the police station and an investigation
was launched. After the investigation was completed, the charges sheet was placed. Taking
into account the evidence gathered, the Trial Court found the accused - Modan Rai guilty and
sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offense referred to in section 302 of the CCC and
for an offense punishable under section 440 of the CCC for two years with a fine in the
amount of Rs. 500 / - has been applied. The remaining three accused were acquitted under
Art. 302 in connection with Art. 34 P.C. However, they were found guilty in connection with
section 440 of the IPK. The convicted defendants appealed to the Supreme Court in
Allahabad, which by the judgment under appeal found the prosecutor's version demanding
unreliability and adequacy and directed to acquittal. The state's appeal for the acquittal of
three people was rejected . According to the Supreme Court, there has been a manipulation of
the time-to-existence in FIR. Originally the same seems to have been written at 7:30 PM then
corrected at 6:30 PM obviously to allow for visibility and identification. There was no motive
to kill the young boy because the position was taken that, despite the difference, there was no
good reason why an innocent boy should be killed. It was also found that since there was only
one shot from the firearm, the question of so-called eyewitnesses rushing to the place to hear
the sound seemed improbable. The distance from which the missile was fired appeared to be
different, and the testimony of the autopsy doctor and the doctor who examined the deceased
immediately after his injuries indicated a contradiction. While Dr. Chander Bhan Tripathi
(PW-4), who performed the autopsy, pointed to a greater distance, the doctor (PW-3)
examining the deceased noticed blackening and tattoos that indicated that the gun shot was
fired very close. After an incidental reference to the evidence, it was found that when
generally assessing the contradictory evidence regarding the injuries and eye testimony, the
timing of the FIR filing raises serious doubts in the prosecution case. It was therefore
concluded that the scene of the incident which was said to have taken place and which was
found in court was not the correct version of the incident and the prosecution did not present
a clear and correct case. Thanks to these findings, the conviction and sentence were quashed
and the acquittal was replaced. The father of the deceased Ramakant Rai filed criminal
appeals No. 2032-33 / 96. The state of Uttar Pradesh filed a criminal appeal No. 611-612 /
1997, limiting the charge to acquittal of Rasbehari , Sahidanand and Janardan, but there is no
possibility to challenge the acquittal of Madan Rai, the main defendant according to the
prosecution . Ramakant Rai's experienced advisor to the appellant stated that the conclusions
of the Supreme Court were unfounded, the judgment was practically unfounded and that the
conclusions could not replace the reasons. Regarding the number of shots, it is alleged that
the witness statements clearly mentioned two shots. This was also noticed by the court of first
instance. Unfortunately, the High Court acted on the presumption as if there was only
one shot. In fact, there was one shot that hit the deceased. But clear and convincing evidence
showed that one shot was fired first, followed by a fatal second shot. The High Court gave
unnecessary importance to the adjustment made in FIR to the time of occurrence. There was
no material and no finding was noted that the time was initially given which was then
changed. It is not a case of defense that the 7.30pm record in FIR was then changed to
6.30pm in another document. As the whistleblower explained, the adjustment was made
before the handover of the first FIR. To say that the time was changed after deliberation
would not be the right approach. According to the informant, by trembling hands, it was so
written and immediately corrected, and the rejection of the prosecution on the basis of
suppositions and assumptions that the time was changed after the deliberation is beyond
defense. Even if it is admitted that an adjustment was made, which was obviously made
before the FIR was handed over, and the usual adjustment cannot be suspected, as did the
High Court . Sudhakar Dube (PW-3) explained why he said about blackening. Evidence
indicated that there was no electric light when he examined the wounded man and he had to
perform a flashlight inspection, which created confusion. In view of this specific explanation,
the High Court had no jurisdiction to conclude that the post mortem report should be
rejected. The first-instance court examined such allegations of the defendants in detail and
indicated the reasons why they were unacceptable. The High Court, without even discussing
the evidence in detail, stated otherwise. The evidence of PW 2 and 5, who are independent
witnesses, was dismissed without even examining their
evidence.                                                                                                                                        
 

ISSUE:
Trial Court convicting M for murder and M along with three other defendants under section
440. Supreme Court Recognition or Sustainable? 

REASONING:

In response, the scholar, the defense attorney of the accused, stated that the request for a
special leave submitted by the deceased's father was not appropriate. Although he claimed to
be an eyewitness, he was not questioned by the prosecution. The argument raised by the
Arbitral Tribunal that he could show sympathy to his close relative after the loss of his son is
contradicted by the very fact that he decided to apply for a special leave. Regarding the
evidence, the doctors found that the nature of the gunshot wounds is indicative of shooting at
close range. Otherwise, the injuries could not be oval when the prosecution claims that the
accused was firing from a height. The nature of the injuries sustained clearly precludes the
firing of any weapons by the accused Madan Rai. No weapon was manufactured, or any
bullet that irretrievably fired the indictment. The lack of a ballistics expert report undermines
the credibility of the accusation, version. Given the distance from which PW 2 and 5 claimed
to arrive, it is highly unlikely that they would have seen the event as claimed. The time of the
event was first correctly mirrored and it was probably noticed during the recording of the first
FIR that visibility would be poor and identification unlikely, therefore a change was
made. Even if it was done before the report was submitted, it raises serious doubts as to the
correct presentation of the factual scenario. Although the High Court did not specify reasons
to support the conclusions, they are not fatal to the final conclusions, as the material gathered
would justify the conclusions and their correctness. An experienced state advisor to the UP
stated that although the state had not specifically challenged Madan Rai's acquittal, it was
clear after reading the Supreme Court judgment that the same could not be upheld. Moreover,
it is alleged that both the trial court and the High Court erred in holding that section 440 of
the IPC. It was not drawn up against the defendant 2, 3 and 4. Due to the unsatisfactory
nature of the removal of the appeal and the inherent improbability and inconsistencies in the
applications, the unjustified, questioned judgment of the Supreme Court justifies the
withdrawal. As for Accused- Modan Lal, his conviction under section 302 IPC
is reinstated . As for the acquittal of other defendants under Art. 302 in connection with
Art. 34, the adjudicating court examined the evidence in detail in order to extend to it the
benefit of the doubts. The High Court did not interfere in the State's appeal for their
acquittal. Nothing could be shown to us why the conclusions were to be reversed and how
they were wrong. Following an appeal by the state and Ramakant Rai's appeal regarding the
acquittal of the defendants Sachidanand , Rasbehari and Janardan under Art. 440 IPC, for
which he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, the Supreme Court sentence is
quashed. Respondents Sachidanand , Rasbehari, and Janardan were rightly convicted by
a trial court under section 440 of the WKP, along with the accused Madan Rai. Two years in
strict prison and a fine of Rs. 500 / - as it has been ordered, it cannot in any way be
considered excessive to justify a different penalty.                                       

Conclusion

Eventually, the Trial Court ruling is reinstated and the High Court is
quashed. Defendants will be placed under arrest to serve any remaining sentence. Appeals are
admissible.