2014 (10) TMI 881 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of leave - Arrangement of illegal import of Polyester Yarn from Nepal - Confessional statement recorded but respondent retracted at the time of examination - Held that - there is no valid and legal retraction by the Respondent in the present case. As per various case laws, a retracted confession could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence but cannot form the sole basis for returning a finding of guilt. There can be conviction only if there is an independent corroboration of the retracted statement. Also where the confessional statement was retracted, the burden shifted on the prosecution to prove that it was made voluntarily. It was pointed out that the confessional statement made by the accused while in custody was weak in nature. Also the witnesses who implicated the Respondent were not produced for cross-examination. Therefore, no grounds have been made out for grant of leave to appeal. - Decided against the department

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Customs Act and Imports and Exports Control Act - Validity of confessional statement - Retraction of confessional statement - Legal implications of retracted confession - Cross-examination of witnesses implicating the accused - Burden of proof on prosecution for voluntary confession - Corroboration of evidence - Grounds for appeal.

Analysis:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence sought leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the Respondent of offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports Control Act. The case involved intercepting a truck carrying Polyester Textured Yarn of foreign origin, leading to the arrest of the Respondent for arranging illegal imports. The trial court found the case against the Respondent unproven beyond reasonable doubt, citing lack of witness cross-examination and retracted confessional statements. The prosecution's failure to provide independent corroboration of the confession led to the Respondent's acquittal.

The petitioner contended that a retracted confessional statement could still be the basis for conviction, citing legal precedents. However, the Respondent had alleged coercion and illegal detention by the DRI, leading to doubts about the validity of the confession. The court noted the importance of considering the circumstances of retraction and other relevant factors in assessing the confession's credibility. Legal principles emphasized the need for independent corroboration of retracted statements for conviction, shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution.

In this case, witnesses implicating the Respondent were not produced for cross-examination, weakening the prosecution's case. While the co-accused made confessional statements, they did not directly implicate the Respondent. The court found no error in the trial court's decision to acquit the Respondent, as grounds for appeal were not substantiated. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for granting leave to appeal. The trial court record was to be returned promptly, concluding the legal judgment.