Madras High Court Orders Three Police Officers To Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Man They Framed In Drugs Case

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the man was in custody since the date of his arrest, without bail.

"Therefore, in this case the appellant deserves to get suitable compensation from the P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the same is quantified as 10 lakhs payable by them jointly,” the court said.

The court reiterated that a fair investigation and trial are the fundamental rights of an accused and the officers should always present true facts of the case.

“Fair investigation and fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that it is the duty of the investigation agency and prosecution agency to disclose the true facts before the Court without any concoction,” the court said.

The court thus directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry against the officers.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a man, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution case was that on June 26, 2021, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thideernagar Police Station, Madurai City, received an information about illegal dealing of Ganja. Along with his team members, the Sub Inspector reached the place of occurrence at 11:40 am where the accused persons were found in possession of 24kg Ganja. The first accused confessed about the involvement of the appellant.

The appellant argued that except for the confession of the co-accused, there was nothing to prove his participation in the crime. It was argued that the appellant's presence at the scene of occurrence was doubtful since his signature was not obtained in the recovery mahazar/athatchi. It was thus argued that the materials placed before the court was not sufficient to prove the case against him.

The state, on the other hand, submitted that the sub inspector and other officer had cogently deposed about the presence of the appellant along with the remaining accused. It was submitted that there was nothing shown to disbelieve the evidence of the officers. Thus, the state sought to dismiss the appeal.

The court noted that no recovery was made from the appellant and the simple confession of the co-accused was not sufficient to convict the accused. It observed that in the absence of any concrete material to show the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurence with the knowledge that the accused were possessing ganja, it could not convict the accused.

The court further observed that to assess the trustworthiness of police witness, it should be seen if there is compliance of procedure. It highlighted that to prove the presence of accused at the scene of occurrence, his signature should have been obtained in the mahazar, which was absent in the case.

The court also noted that while the officer deposed that he had taken down the information received by hand, a typed copy was produced before the court. The court concluded that this document was a fabricated one since it was not mentioned in the immediate report sent under Section 57 of the Act. The court also noted that the superior officer had also given false evidence before the court, of having acknowledged the FIR and allowing the officers to proceed with the case.

“From the above circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution not only failed to prove the compliance of Section 42 but has also maneuvered to get conviction by leading false evidence. Therefore this Court is inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that false case was registered against the appellant,” the court observed.

Noting that the issue of giving false evidence had to be dealt with seriously, the court directed the DGP to conduct an enquiry. The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: A Vignesh v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

Case No: Crl.A.(MD).No.351 of 2023