2009 (12) TMI 251 - HC - Customs

Prosecution- Gold Smuggling- Merely because serious offence alleged, cannot be a ground to appeal against acquittal order. Acquittal by trial court after taking all circumstances into consideration and case against respondent being doubtful in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate statement. - Settled law that retracted statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction when not corroborated. No recovery effected from respondents - Car from where contraband seized, not belongs to respondents Petition is dismissed

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment of acquittal under section 378(IV) Cr. P.C.
2. Conviction under section 135(1)(b) of Customs Act.
3. Validity of statements under section 108 of Customs Act as evidence.
4. Retraction of statements by the accused.
5. Corroboration of evidence for conviction.
6. Consideration of defense witnesses' testimonies.
7. Application of legal principles in deciding the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petition was filed for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Ld. ACMM in a case under section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The prosecution's case involved the interception of a car carrying gold biscuits and subsequent recovery of incriminating documents and currency from the accused persons. The trial court convicted some accused and acquitted others, leading to the appeal by the DRI officials.

2. The prosecution contended that statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were admissible evidence for conviction. They argued that the retraction of statements by the accused should not affect the validity of the original statements. Various grounds were raised to challenge the judgment of acquittal, highlighting the importance of statements and recovered documents as evidence.

3. The respondents opposed the appeal, emphasizing the retraction of statements by the accused and presenting defense witnesses to support their case. The respondents argued that the prosecution failed to establish a connection between the accused and the alleged offense, especially in the absence of corroborating evidence for the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act.

4. The court considered the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses, analyzing the validity of the evidence presented during the trial. The judgment focused on the necessity of corroborating evidence to support statements made by the accused under section 108 of the Customs Act. The court highlighted the importance of fair trial practices and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

5. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient corroborative evidence to support the statements made by the accused. The judgment emphasized the need for independent corroboration to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited previous legal precedents to support the decision and concluded that the appeal against the judgment of acquittal was not justified.

6. The court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Ld. ACMM to acquit the accused based on the lack of substantial evidence linking them to the alleged offense. The judgment reiterated the principle of favoring the accused when two views are possible and emphasized the importance of upholding legal standards in criminal proceedings.

← Previous Next →