9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of search warrants and ownership of recovered items. 2. Admissibility of statements made before customs authorities. 3. Conscious possession of imported watches and straps. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The validity of search warrants and ownership of recovered items. The complaint filed alleged that foreign-made watches and straps were recovered from the shop and possession of the respondents. The trial magistrate found issues with the search warrants and lack of satisfactory explanation regarding ownership and possession of the watches. However, the High Court held that once imported watches are found in possession, they themselves become evidence, regardless of the irregularity in the warrants. The prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt, especially as documentary evidence supporting ownership was not produced. Issue 2: Admissibility of statements made before customs authorities. The statements made by the respondents before customs authorities were challenged for being procured under duress. Testimony revealed that one respondent was not allowed to contact anyone until he made a signed statement, indicating coercion. The High Court emphasized that denial of the right to legal advice or contact with family can constitute duress. The respondents' refusal to sign statements further supported the claim of involuntary confessions. The trial magistrate was correct in discarding these statements as evidence. Issue 3: Conscious possession of imported watches and straps. Regarding the possession of watches and straps, discrepancies arose during the trial. The prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the recovered items and conscious possession by the respondents. Testimony revealed that another individual was present in the shop during the search and had some of the items in his possession. The defense suggested that the watches belonged to this individual and not the respondents. Lack of documentary evidence and inconsistencies in oral testimony led the High Court to affirm the trial magistrate's finding that conscious possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the trial magistrate's decision to acquit the respondents due to insufficient evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence collection and the need to establish conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt in such cases.
|
