2009 (12) TMI 910 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - heroin - Section 67 of the NDPS Act - substantiating of statement of respondent - confiscation - penalty

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
2. Requirement of corroboration for statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
3. Retraction of statements and its impact on the case.
4. Legality of the respondent's detention and alleged maltreatment.
5. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility of Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner argued that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were sufficient to convict the respondent. However, the trial court found that the statements were not made voluntarily. The court noted that the respondent was subjected to maltreatment and coercion, and there was no corroborative evidence to support the statements. The Additional Sessions Judge highlighted that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the voluntariness of the statements. The cross-examination of PW1 R.D. Gupta revealed inconsistencies and lack of memory about crucial details, which weakened the prosecution's case.

2. Requirement of Corroboration for Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner contended that there is no legal requirement for corroboration of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, the trial court and the High Court emphasized that prudence requires such statements to be corroborated by independent evidence, especially when they are retracted. The court cited various judgments, including UOI & Ors. Vs. Bal Mukund, which stated that retracted confessions need independent corroboration to be admissible.

3. Retraction of Statements and Its Impact on the Case:
The respondent retracted his statement immediately upon being produced before the court, claiming it was obtained under duress. The trial court found this retraction significant and noted that the prosecution failed to provide any rebuttal to the allegations of torture. The High Court supported this view, stating that a retracted statement, without corroboration, cannot form the basis of conviction.

4. Legality of the Respondent's Detention and Alleged Maltreatment:
The respondent claimed he was illegally detained by NCB officials from 21.11.1987 to 24.11.1987 and was subjected to maltreatment. His brother, DW2, corroborated this by testifying about the illegal detention and the telegram sent to the authorities. The trial court found these claims credible, especially since the prosecution did not provide any evidence to counter these allegations. The High Court reiterated that the respondent's detention and the manner in which the statements were obtained cast doubt on their voluntariness.

5. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction:
The trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no recovery of contraband from the respondent, and the case relied heavily on the retracted statements, which lacked independent corroboration. The High Court agreed with the trial court's assessment, emphasizing that when two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's request for leave to file an appeal, finding no reason to overturn the trial court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, which acquitted the respondent due to the lack of voluntary and corroborated evidence. The court emphasized the importance of corroboration for retracted statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and highlighted the respondent's illegal detention and maltreatment as significant factors undermining the prosecution's case. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the benefit of doubt should favor the accused.

← Previous Next →