2024 (12) TMI 686 - HC - Customs

Legality of the search and seizure operation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - Confiscation of contrabend - Gold - corroboration for the retracted confession - conviction based merely on the confessional statement of the accused which has been subsequently retracted - HELD THAT - Though under the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, The Court cannot embark upon the exercise of re-appreciation of evidence, but in order to decide the challenge to the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.1998, to that extent case of prosecution and the evidence will have to be seen. Keeping this aspect in mind in the present case it is seen that the entire case of prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who were the Officers of DRI who carried out the search and seizure operation. PW-1 is the Superintendent of DRI whereas PW-2 is a retired Superintendent of Central Excise who was working as Senior Intelligence Officer with the DRI at the then time - Both the witnesses are Officers of DRI and therefore if their oral evidence is required to be believed it ought to have been duly corroborated and supported by evidence of independent panchas and witnesses who were present at the time of search and seizure. The learned Trial Court has returned a categorical finding that while prosecuting the case the prosecution tried its level best to find out the panchas and witnesses but they could not be traced and summons were not served upon them. This finding of the Trial Court is based upon the report filed by the prosecution stating the above reason for not examining the independent panchas and witnesses to the entire search and seizure operation in the present case - The learned Trial Court has held that prosecution has not provided any cogent evidence to prove that accused was occupying the subject premises solely. There are no statements of any of the neighbors or building residents recorded to prove this fact. That apart there were several other women/police woman present at the time of the raid, but statements of none of those present who participated in the entire operation were recorded. When Respondent No. 1 had retracted her confessional statement, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the Respondent No. 1. The defence had argued that the confessional statement was recorded under threat given to accused to harm her minor son. That apart, the confessional statement was recorded in English language whereas the accused had knowledge of Urdu language only - Resting the prosecution case only on the basis of confessional statement and the twin depositions of prosecution Officers undoubtedly has fallen short of proving the prosecution case and guilt of Respondent No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court dated 14.10.1998 is upheld. Resultantly the Appeal fails - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the search and seizure operation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the confessional statement made by the accused.
3. Requirement of corroboration for the retracted confession.
4. Burden of proof and the standard required for conviction in criminal cases.
5. Evaluation of evidence and the role of independent witnesses in proving the prosecution's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Operation:

The case arose from a raid conducted on 04.02.1988 by the DRI at the residence of Respondent No. 1, where gold bars were allegedly found and seized. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, officers of the DRI, who conducted the operation. However, the trial court noted the absence of independent witnesses or neutral panchas during the search and seizure, which raised questions about the credibility of the operation. The prosecution's inability to trace or summon these independent witnesses further weakened their case.

2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Confessional Statement:

The accused had initially confessed to possessing the gold bars but later retracted the statement, claiming it was made under duress and threats to her minor son. The trial court emphasized that the confessional statement was recorded in English, a language the accused was not proficient in, as she only understood Urdu. This discrepancy, coupled with the lack of independent corroboration, led the court to question the voluntariness and reliability of the confession.

3. Requirement of Corroboration for the Retracted Confession:

The trial court highlighted the legal principle that while retracted confessions can be relied upon, they require corroboration by independent evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide such corroboration, as the entire case rested on the confessional statement and the testimonies of the DRI officers, without any supporting evidence from independent sources.

4. Burden of Proof and Standard for Conviction:

The judgment reiterated that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court found that the prosecution did not meet this standard, as the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband gold. The court noted that the accused was not proven to be the sole occupant of the premises, and there was no evidence from neighbors or other building residents to support the prosecution's claims.

5. Evaluation of Evidence and Role of Independent Witnesses:

The trial court criticized the prosecution for its failure to present independent witnesses or neutral panchas, which could have lent credibility to the search and seizure operation. The absence of such witnesses made the prosecution's case appear circumspect, as it relied solely on the officers' testimonies and the retracted confession. The court emphasized the importance of independent evidence in criminal proceedings to substantiate the prosecution's claims and ensure a fair trial.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of independent corroboration for the retracted confession, coupled with the absence of neutral witnesses, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized the necessity of meeting the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of corroborating evidence to support confessions and testimonies. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment of acquittal was affirmed.

← Previous Next →