The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed three police personnel attached to Thideer Nagar police station in Madurai to jointly pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to a man for conspiring to get him convicted in a ganja case by giving false evidence before the trial court.
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan directed the police personnel — Panaraj, Senthilkumar and Mohammed Idris — to jointly pay the compensation. The court also directed the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry into their conduct.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by A. Vignesh, one of the accused in the case. According to the prosecution, on June 26, 2021, seven accused, including one juvenile, were found in possession of 24 kg of ganja near Melavasal. The First Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, sentenced the appellant to 10-year rigorous imprisonment. Vignesh challenged the judgment.
His counsel submitted that except the confession of the co-accused, no material was placed before the trial court to prove the participation of the appellant in the alleged crime. The presence of the appellant in the scene of occurrence was doubtful on the grounds that his signature was not obtained in the recovery mahazar, it was submitted.
Justice Ramakrishnan observed that a fair investigation and a fair trial was a fundamental right of the accused. The simple confession of the co-accused was not sufficient to convict the appellant. Even as per the prosecution case, no recovery was made from the appellant. The recovery was made only from the first accused.
In the absence of any concrete material to prove the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence with the knowledge that the main accused possessed ganja, the court was not inclined to convict him.
The court observed that in the case of recovery, recovery mahazar was a vital document. To prove the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence, the officer should have obtained the signature of the appellant in the recovery mahazar. The absence of signature created a doubt. If the case of prosecution was that the accused refused to sign in the recovery mahazar it should be proved.
The court was inclined to accept the argument of the counsel for the appellant that a false case was registered against him, the court observed, set aside the trial court judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Published – October 25, 2025 09:10 pm IST
