Was convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Para 1)
They received secret information in the afternoon that three parcels on platform no. 4 and two on platform no. 6 of Ambala Cantonment station contained contraband. (Para 2)
After that, accused no. 2 – Rahish alias Munna, approached PW2 with a railway receipt concerning the parcels in question. As per the instructions of the Police, he was asked to wait. PW2 immediately informed the police. After some time, the appellant–Nababuddin alias Mallu alias Abhimanyu, approached PW2 and enquired about the same parcels. The accused no. 2, and the appellant were asked to wait. They were arrested. Subsequently, on 31st May 2001, accused no. 1 was arrested at railway station Ambala Cantt. It is alleged that accused no. 1 had got the parcel booked. (Para 2)
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that he is a rikshaw puller like the accused no. 2. According to the appellant, accused no. 2 had gone to enquire about the arrival of parcels on behalf of the owner to the railway station, and when he failed to return, the appellant went to the railway station to enquire about him. His submission is that even the railway receipt of the parcels was not produced by the appellant but by the accused no. 2. He submitted that the case made out by the prosecution that the railway receipt stood in the name of the appellant had not been put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). He submitted that even the allegation that the appellant approached the station supervisor to enquire about the parcel was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. (Para 3)
Thus, both the circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon against the appellant were not put to him in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. Even the question no.15 does not incorporate any specific circumstance against the accused. (Para 10)
The appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years. If, after the lapse of more than twenty two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him. Therefore, the failure to put two relevant circumstances to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC will be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, on this ground, we hold that the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 13)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 441 SC
[2023 INSC 1020]
Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu Vs. State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010-Decided on 24-11-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-STPLWeb-441-SC.pdf
