Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Drug Consumption Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The Supreme Court of India, while reversing the judgment of the trial court where Karan Talwar was held guilty to be a drug consumer within the meaning of Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), condemned the order of judgment which was based upon inadmissible evidence and where, on the facts pleaded, the prosecution had no prima facie case.

The case had originated from a music festival at a resort where several persons, including Talwar, were accused of consuming drugs. While other accused faced charges under various laws, Talwar was specifically charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, which pertains to the consumption of drugs not specified in clause (a).

The case for the prosecution rested solely on the confession of a co-accused, which, under Section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is inadmissible as evidence. The Court highlighted the precedent set in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (Click to Download), which clearly states that confessions made to the police cannot be used to secure a conviction.

The Apex Court expressed strong disapproval on the whole investigation process and has noted that Talwar was not subjected to a medical examination, and the only evidence presented was the observation of a witness who claimed to have “smelt” the accused. The Court observed that this evidence unreliable and insufficient to establish drug consumption.

Pointing to the Scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C., the Court referred to P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr (Click to Download) and Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Click to Download) to clarify that at the stage of deciding whether to frame charges, the judge must assess if there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the accused. A mere suspicion cannot be enough; it needs to be a prima facie case based on believable evidence.

Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Confessions: Citing Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra(Click to Download), the Court reiterated that a confession by a co-accused implicating another person is not sufficient to frame charges, let alone secure a conviction.

Requirement of Prima Facie Case: The Court, referring to Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr(Click to Download), emphasized that a "strong suspicion" is necessary to frame charges, but this suspicion must be grounded in evidence that can be presented at trial. A mere subjective belief on the part of the judge is not enough.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Talwar. The Court stated that subjecting an individual to a trial based solely on inadmissible evidence would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision and discharged Talwar from the case.

Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal..
Between: Karan Talwar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu2024caseguru
Date of Judgement: 19-12-2024