Humanitarian considerations can't override statutory minimum punishment: SC

New Delhi, Dec 11 (PTI) Humanitarian considerations cannot override the statutory minimum punishment mandated by the legislature, the Supreme Court said on Thursday while refusing to interfere with the sentence imposed on a woman in a narcotic case.

The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal by the woman challenging a June 2024 order of the Madras High Court which upheld her conviction and 10 year sentence in the case lodged under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

While dismissing her appeal, a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi noted that the appellant, who was 24-year-old at the time of the incident in 2019, has urged the court to consider her age, lack of prior criminal history and responsibility towards her minor child.

The bench said while it was not unmindful of the appellant's circumstances, the NDPS Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentence for possession of commercial quantity.

"The court has no discretion to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum punishment mandated by the legislature," the bench said.

It noted that according to the prosecution, the appellant and her husband were intercepted in September 2019 and after the police searched the vehicle, 23.5 kg of 'ganja' was seized.

An FIR was registered and later, a trial court convicted them for the offences under the NDPS Act and imposed 10-year sentence along with fine.

Both the convicts approached the high court, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

The woman then approached the apex court challenging the high court verdict.

Before the top court, her counsel argued that the prosecution's case suffers from multiple infirmities and though the seizure took place in a residential locality, yet no independent witness was secured.

Arguing that the high court order was liable to be set side, her counsel in the alternative said the appellant was a first-time offender and was the sole caregiver of her minor child.

Her counsel urged for remission or reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, which was over 5 years and 9 months.

Dealing with the submissions, the bench said the apex court has consistently held that non-examination of independent witnesses was not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution, particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations often take place under challenging circumstances.

"In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent," it said.

The bench said absence of independent witnesses cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.

It said the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.5 kg of 'ganja', which is a commercial quantity.

While upholding her conviction and sentence, the bench said, "The appellant, however, is at liberty to pursue any remedy available in law for statutory remission before the appropriate authority." PTI ABA ZMN