2019 (9) TMI 830 - SC - Indian Laws

Offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 29, 21 and 23(c) and 27(A) of the NDPS Act - punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders - confessional statement - HELD THAT - We proceed on the premise that the confession is admissible. Even if it is admissible, the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of this case. It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence - The confession of the co-accused, which was said to be a corroborative piece of evidence, has been discussed above and is of no material value. Therefore, other than the two confessional statements one of the co-accused and the other of the accused, the prosecution has gathered no evidence to link the appellant with the commission of the offence. As such, without going into the legality of the admissibility of the confession, it is held that even if these confessions are admissible then also the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused. The Trial Court and the High Court wrongly convicted the accused - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under the NDPS Act for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.
2. Evidence required to prove the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.
3. Admissibility and sufficiency of confessional statements as evidence.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under Section 8(c) read with 29, 21, 23(c), and 27(A) of the NDPS Act. The key issue was the offence under Section 27A relating to financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused directly or indirectly financed or harbored any person engaged in illicit activities. The case was solely based on financing and lacked evidence of harboring. The judgment highlighted the essential ingredient of this offence and emphasized the necessity of proving the accused's involvement in the specified activities. The lack of evidence regarding financing or international smuggling led to the conclusion that the charges were not substantiated.

2. The judgment discussed the facts of the case where the appellant was implicated based on the statement of a co-accused and his alleged confession. The statement of the co-accused lacked corroboration and was deemed weak evidence. The confession of the appellant, recorded after his arrest, raised questions regarding its voluntariness and the accused's awareness of his rights. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence, especially for confessions recorded during custody. The absence of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the offence, apart from the confessional statements, resulted in the insufficiency to convict the accused.

3. In the final analysis, the court found merit in the appeal and overturned the convictions by the Trial Court and the High Court. The judgment concluded that the accused was wrongly convicted as the evidence presented, primarily the confessional statements, was insufficient to establish guilt. The decision to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allow the appeal was based on the lack of substantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences. The accused, who was already on bail, had their bail bonds discharged following the successful appeal.