1979 (1) TMI 114 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal of accused Nos. 4 & 5 by the State of Gujarat.
2. Prosecution's case under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
3. Use of confessional statements as evidence against accused Nos. 4 & 5.
4. Reliance on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt of accused No. 4.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 & 5 by the State of Gujarat. The prosecution's case revolved around the interception of a van carrying silver ingots without transport vouchers, leading to charges under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The trial resulted in the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 based on their confessional statements, while accused Nos. 4 & 5 were acquitted due to lack of evidence beyond these statements.

2. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 4 & 5 were involved in the transportation of silver ingots obtained from accused No. 4 to be delivered to accused No. 5, a reputed smuggler. The case primarily relied on confessional statements of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, recorded by customs officials. The statements detailed the sequence of events leading to the interception of the van and the involvement of accused Nos. 4 & 5 in the illegal transportation of silver.

3. The court analyzed the admissibility of the confessional statements against accused Nos. 4 & 5. While the statements of co-accused can lend assurance to the guilt, they cannot solely establish the guilt of other accused. Referring to the Supreme Court precedent in Haroom Hajiv v. State of Maharashtra, the court emphasized that confessions of co-accused should be corroborated by other evidence for conviction. As there was no independent evidence against accused Nos. 4 & 5, the court upheld the acquittal based on the principle that confessions alone are insufficient to prove guilt.

4. The prosecution attempted to rely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the similarity of silver seized from the van and the silver ingots found at the factory of accused No. 4, to establish his involvement in the crime. However, the court noted the lack of distinguishing marks on the silver ingots, rendering the similarity inconclusive. Without concrete evidence linking accused No. 4 to the seized silver, the circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to prove his guilt.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 & 5 due to the prosecution's failure to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.