Madras HC Orders Three Police Offciers to Pay ₹10 Lakh for Fabricating Evidence in NDPS Case [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has ordered three police officers to jointly pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation after finding that they had conspired to secure a conviction through false evidence in a narcotics case, while also directing an inquiry into their conduct by the Director General of Police.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan heard Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2023 filed by A. Vignesh challenging his conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

According to the prosecution, on 26.06.2021, police received secret information about illegal ganja dealing at Melavasal and recovered a white sack containing 24 kg of ganja. Seven accused, including one juvenile, were arrested. The appellant allegedly confessed, and an FIR was registered as Crime No. 222 of 2021.

The appellant’s counsel argued that except for the co-accused’s confession, no material proved his participation. Critically, his signature was not obtained in the recovery mahazar (athatchi) marked as Ex.P.4, raising doubts about his presence at the scene. The defence relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, arguing that a conviction based solely on a co-accused’s confession is legally unsustainable.

The Court found that no recovery was made from the appellant—only from A1. The Court stated:

“In the absence of any concrete material to prove the presence of the appellant at the occurrence place with the knowledge that A1 possessed ganja, this Court is not inclined to convict the appellant.”

The Court noted a critical deficiency:

“To prove the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence, the officer should have obtained the signature of the appellant in the athatchi/recovery mahazar, Ex.P.4. The absence of signature creates a doubt in the mind of this Court with respect to the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as regards the involvement of the appellant in this case.”

More significantly, the Court found serious discrepancies regarding Section 42 compliance of the NDPS Act. PW2 admitted he did not produce the handwritten general diary containing the recorded information—only a typed copy was presented as Ex.P9. A critical contradiction emerged as PW2 testified that Inspector Lingapandi had signed the information, while PW4 deposed that he had signed Ex.P9.

The Court further observed:

“This indicates that P.W.4 gave false evidence before the trial Court.”

It noted that PW3, the investigating officer, filed a memo to add PW4 as an additional witness without including his name in the original final report.

The Court concluded:

“Since P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 conspired to secure a conviction by hook or crook, giving false evidence before the trial Court, this Court takes a serious view of this matter.”

Finding an “unholy alliance between the witnesses to secure conviction based on false evidence,” Justice Ramakrishnan held that since the appellant had remained in custody from arrest without bail, he deserved suitable compensation quantified at Rs. 10 lakh, payable jointly by the three officers.

The Court emphasized:

“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 and prosecution agencies to disclose the true facts before the Court without any concoction.”

The Court directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of PW2, PW3, and PW4 after giving them an opportunity of hearing, with the inquiry to be completed within one month. Justice Ramakrishnan clarified that the authority should conduct an independent inquiry without being influenced by the Court’s findings.

The appeal was allowed, the trial court judgment set aside, the appellant acquitted of all charges, the fine amount ordered to be refunded, and the three police officers directed to pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation within one month. The registry was directed to keep records in safe custody until the inquiry’s conclusion.

Mr. G. Karupasamy Pandian appeared for the appellant, while Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State.

Case Title: A. Vignesh vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai

[Read Judgment]