9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of evidence connecting Haroon to the conspiracy. 2. Validity of statements made by co-accused Bengali and Noor Mohammad. 3. Use of retracted confessions as corroborative evidence. 4. Application of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. 5. Corroboration of accomplice testimony. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Evidence Connecting Haroon to the Conspiracy: The appellant Haroon was convicted based on the testimony of an accomplice, Kashinath (P.W. 1), who implicated Haroon in the smuggling operations. The court noted that Kashinath's narrative was simple and credible, and his testimony was accepted by both the Magistrate and the High Court. The court found no significant reason to reject Kashinath's deposition as false. 2. Validity of Statements Made by Co-Accused Bengali and Noor Mohammad: The statements of Bengali and Noor Mohammad were made to Customs Officers under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. The court scrutinized these statements to ensure they were made voluntarily and found no evidence of duress or torture. The statements were thus considered relevant and could be used against the makers and co-accused jointly tried with them. However, Noor Mohammad's statement was not relied upon by the High Court due to his trial being separated. 3. Use of Retracted Confessions as Corroborative Evidence: The court acknowledged that retracted confessions are weak evidence and must be approached with caution. The retraction of confessions by Bengali and Noor Mohammad did not diminish their relevance as corroborative evidence, provided the initial confessions were voluntary and truthful. The court emphasized the need for independent evidence to corroborate the accomplice's testimony. 4. Application of Section 30 of the Evidence Act: Section 30 allows the use of a confession by one accused against another co-accused if they are jointly tried. The court held that Bengali's statement, made during the joint trial, was admissible under Section 30. The court also referenced the case of Ram Sarup Singh and Others v. Emperor, where a confession made by a deceased co-accused during a joint trial was considered relevant. 5. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony: The law requires that accomplice testimony be corroborated in material particulars. The court found ample corroboration for Kashinath's testimony from diverse sources, including the statements of Bengali and Noor Mohammad. The court noted that the statements of Kashinath and Bengali were consistent and corroborated by independent evidence, such as the details of the smuggling operations and the participants involved. The court emphasized that the corroboration must connect the accused to the crime independently of the accomplice's testimony. Conclusion: The court concluded that the evidence against Haroon was sufficient and corroborated in material respects. The appeal was dismissed, and Haroon was ordered to surrender to his bail. Appeal dismissed.
|
