9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 828 - SC - Indian LawsConviction of the appellant - Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - reliability on statements - Section 67 of the NDPS Act - Held that - In the present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him - the orders of conviction and sentence set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 2. Conviction based solely on the confessional statements of co-accused. 3. Applicability of Section 25 of the Evidence Act to statements made to DRI officers. 4. Requirement of corroborative evidence for conviction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Co-accused Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act: The primary issue was whether the statements made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could be used as evidence against the appellant. The court noted that while Section 67 statements might be admissible, their reliability and the manner in which they were recorded were crucial. The court referred to past judgments, including Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, which held that statements under Section 67 are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act as DRI officers are not considered police officers. However, the court also noted that the matter of whether such statements could be treated as confessional had been referred to a larger bench in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. 2. Conviction Based Solely on the Confessional Statements of Co-accused: The court emphasized that a conviction cannot rest solely on the confessional statements of co-accused. It cited Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that a co-accused's confession is weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court reiterated that such confessions could only lend assurance to other substantive evidence and not replace it. In the absence of any corroborative evidence against the appellant, the court found it inappropriate to base the conviction purely on the co-accused's statements. 3. Applicability of Section 25 of the Evidence Act to Statements Made to DRI Officers: The court discussed whether statements made to DRI officers fell under the purview of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which excludes confessions made to police officers from being admissible. It relied on previous rulings, including Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal, which concluded that DRI officers do not qualify as police officers under Section 25. Thus, statements made to them under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible. 4. Requirement of Corroborative Evidence for Conviction: The court highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence when relying on the confession of a co-accused. It referenced the principles laid down in Kashmira Singh and Hari Charan Kurmi, which mandate that a confession can only supplement other substantive evidence. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any material evidence linking the appellant to the crime apart from the co-accused's statements. The court found that without independent corroborative evidence, the conviction could not be sustained. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appellant's conviction was unsustainable due to the lack of substantive evidence apart from the co-accused's statements. It underscored that such statements, while admissible, could not solely form the basis of a conviction. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his immediate release unless required for any other offense.
|
