9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 104(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of the confessions under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. 3. Truthfulness of the confessions. 4. Requirement of corroboration for extra-judicial confessions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Section 104(2) of the Customs Act, 1962: The first contention was that the accused were not presented to a Magistrate until the 23rd of March 1965, violating Section 104(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates that an arrested person must be presented "without unnecessary delay." The court noted that Section 104(2) comes into play only after a formal arrest. The accused were formally arrested after their statements were recorded and were presented to the Magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest, thus complying with Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The court held that there was no "unnecessary delay" in presenting the accused to the Magistrate. 2. Validity of the Confessions under Section 24 of the Evidence Act: The main argument was that the confessions were obtained under compulsion and should be excluded under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The court examined whether the accused were in custody or under arrest at the time of making the confessions. It was concluded that although there was some restriction on their movements, this did not equate to formal arrest. The court referred to the distinction between "arrest" and "custody," noting that the presence of some surveillance does not necessarily make a confession involuntary. The court found no evidence of inducement, threat, or promise that would render the confessions involuntary. 3. Truthfulness of the Confessions: The court examined the coherence and consistency of the confessions. Despite some minor inconsistencies in the narrative of how the accused got acquainted and the events at the crime scene, the court did not find these sufficient to render the confessions untrue. The court also considered the circumstances and evidence presented, including the behavior of the accused when confronted by the excise officers, which supported the truthfulness of the confessions. 4. Requirement of Corroboration for Extra-Judicial Confessions: The court acknowledged the prudence of requiring corroboration for retracted confessions but found "abundant corroboration" in this case. The immediate admission by accused No. 2 at the scene and the behavior of accused No. 1 when questioned provided sufficient corroboration. The court also addressed the non-examination of the driver Bapu, concluding that the absence of his testimony did not necessitate an adverse inference against the prosecution, as no objection was raised during the trial regarding his non-examination. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, were upheld. The court found that the confessions were voluntary, true, and sufficiently corroborated. The accused were ordered to surrender to bail within two weeks.
|
