The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on three police officers for fabricating evidence and giving false testimony in a narcotics case..Justice KK Ramakrishnan found that the officers conspired to secure a wrongful conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act..The Court passed the order while acquitting a man who had been convicted by a special court for allegedly possessing 24 kilograms of ganja. He had been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh. The High Court held that the prosecution story was false and unsupported by credible evidence..Justice Ramakrishnan found that the police officers “conspired together to get the conviction by hook or crook by giving false evidence before the trial court.” The Court said the entire case rested on fabricated documents and contradictions in the testimonies of the investigating officers.According to the judgment, the sub-inspector who received the secret information claimed he had written it by hand. However, the report produced in court was a typed version. Another officer stated that he had signed the document, though evidence showed that a different officer had in fact signed it. “This indicates that false evidence was given before the trial court,” the judge said..The Court observed that such conduct amounted to a serious violation of the accused’s fundamental right to a fair investigation and trial. “The prosecution not only failed to prove compliance of Section 42 but also maneuvered to get conviction by leading false evidence,” the judgment stated.Justice Ramakrishnan said that the contradictions showed an “unholy alliance between witnesses to secure conviction based on false evidence.” He directed the three officers to jointly pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to the accused within one month.The Court also ordered the Director General of Police, Chennai to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers. “The authority shall conduct the enquiry independently without being influenced by the findings in this judgment,” it said. The DGP was directed to complete the inquiry within one month..Advocate G Karupasamy Pandian represented the appellant..Additional Public Prosecutor R Meenakshi Sundaram appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]
