Socio-Economic Crime Case: Ram Bahadur Gurung vs. GON, NKP (6th semester)

Socio-Economic Crime Case: Ram Bahadur Gurung vs. GON, NKP 2072B.S, Vol. 8

Case: Narcotic Drug
Plaintiff/Applicant:Government of Nepal
Defendant/Respondent:Ram Bahadur Gurung
Decision Number:9453

The case involves possession, transportation and sale of heroin and whether a person may be held criminally liable if the narcotic drugs are not in his possession.

Facts of the Case:
In the rented room of Aitaram Tamang and Harikrishna Rana at Mahadevtar, Gongabu in Kathmandu, police recovered 168 grams of white heroin. Aitaram Tamang and Harikrishna Rana were caught in the room where the heroin was found. During the investigation process Harikrishna Rana identified Ram Bahadur Gurung as the person who provided the heroin for sell. During investigation, Aitaram Tamang and Harikrishna Rana had said that they were going to buy the heroin at Rs.500/- per gram and sell at RS.700/- per gram and distribute the profit amongst themselves. During the investigation, Ram Bahadur Gurung also added that he had handed over the heroin to Harikrishna Rana for selling, who then handed over the drug to Aitaram Tamang. The laboratory testing confirmed the seized drug to be diacetylmorphine (heroin). The accused were charged under the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act, 2033 and the punishment sought was under Section 14(1)(6)(3) of the same Act.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the conviction for a narcotic-drug offence can be obtained against Ram Bahadur Gurung even though no amount of narcotic drugs has been recovered from his possession?
2. Whether the evidence established Ram Bahadur Gurung’s involvement in the transportation and planned sale of heroin?
3. If the accused was involved in an organized sequence of actions to supply, transport and sell the heroin for criminal gain?

Decision of Courts:
Kathmandu District Court: Court found Aitaram Tamang, Harikrishna Rana and Ram Bahadur Gurung guilty of the narcotic-drug offence. The court determined that the accused had bought, moved, stored and planned to sell 168 grams of the heroin. The court-imposed sentences on each of the accused of: 15 years’ imprisonment and Rs. 5,00,000/- fine.

Patan Appellate Court: Court upheld the District Court’s decision.

Supreme Court: Ram Bahadur Gurung appealed to Supreme Court. His main argument was that no heroin had been recovered from his possession and that his involvement had not been independently established. This was not accepted by Supreme Court. The Court considered:

• Ram Bahadur Gurung’s claim that he had handed over the heroin to Harikrishna Rana for sale
• The allegation by Harikrishna Rana that Ram Bahadur had provided the heroin
• Aitaram Tamang’s announcement about the planned purchase and sale
• The lab report that the substance was heroin.

The Court concluded that evidence demonstrated a chain in which the heroin was passed from one person to another for the purpose of sale and profit. In an organized crime, it is not important whose body the narcotic drug was found in, what is important is whether the evidence establishes the person’s participation in the organized criminal activity. The Supreme Court thus found the order of Patan Appellate Court to be correct and dismissed Ram Bahadur Gurung’s appeal.

Principle Established:

1. Narcotics need not be recovered for conviction from the accused.A person may be convicted if other reliable evidence proves his involvement in the narcotic-drug offence.
2. The whole chain of conduct can be used to determine the role of each participant.The court may review the entire chain of possession, not just from the person from whom the drugs were actually found.
3. Individuals can play various roles in the same criminal sequence.
4. Relevance of the purpose of obtaining criminal profit.
5. When individuals are involved in the illegal drug trade and are acting in concert with a shared goal of profit, their actions may demonstrate organized crime.The court shall take into account the evidence in its entirety.
6. The involvement of an accused may be established by the combination of statements, seizure reports, witness testimony and laboratory reports.
7. Not owning the property is not a proof of innocence.A person cannot simply claim that the narcotic drug was seized from another person when the evidence shows he was actively involved in the drug transaction.