1997 (2) TMI 97 - SC - Customs

Whether the confessional statement of the appellant given to the Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 though retracted at a later stage, is admissible in evidence and could form basis for conviction? Whether retracted confessional statement requires corroboration on material particulars from independent evidence? Held that - On scanning the evidence and going through the reasoning of the learned Single Judge we find that the learned Judge was right in accepting the confessional statement of the appellant, Ex. P-4 to be a voluntary one and that it could form the basis for conviction. The Magistrate had dwelt upon the controversy, no doubt on appreciation of the evidence but not in proper or right perspective. Therefore, it is not necessary for the learned Judge of the High Court to wade through every reasoning and give his reasons for his disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate. On relevant aspects, the learned Judge has dwelt upon in detail and recorded the disagreement with the Magistrate and reached his conclusions. Therefore, there is no illegality in the approach adopted by the learned Judge. We hold that the learned Judge was right in his findings that the prosecution has proved the case based upon the confession of the appellant given in Ex. P-4 under Section 108 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5. The prosecution proved the case beyond doubt and the High Court has committed no error of law. .Having reached the finding that the appellant has committed the offences under Section 135 (1)(i) of the Act and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 we think that instead of being committed to jail, the appellant should be sentenced to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- respectively for the two aforementioned offences, within 4 months from today. In default, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months and 1 month respectively which are directed to run consecutively. Appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent of modification.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the retracted confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Requirement of corroboration for retracted confessional statements.
3. Whether the appellant was an accused at the time of making the statement.
4. Validity of the High Court's reversal of the Magistrate's acquittal.
5. Determination of the appropriate punishment.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the Retracted Confessional Statement:

The primary question was whether the retracted confessional statement, Ex. P-4, given by the appellant to the Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, though later retracted, is admissible in evidence under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that for Section 24 to apply, the statement must be made by an accused to a person in authority and obtained by inducement, threat, or promise. The Court concluded that Customs officers, while empowered to record statements under Section 108, do not render the statement inadmissible under Section 24 unless it is proven to be obtained by threat, inducement, or promise. The Court found that the appellant's statement was not obtained under such circumstances and was therefore admissible.

2. Requirement of Corroboration for Retracted Confessional Statements:

The Court examined whether a retracted confession requires corroboration from independent evidence. It was held that while a retracted confession can form the sole basis for conviction if it is voluntary and true, the rule of prudence and practice requires that the Court seek corroboration from other evidence. The Court noted that corroboration does not need to be for each detail but should generally support the confession. The Court found that the confessional statement, recovery panchnama, and testimonies of PWs 2, 3, and 5 provided sufficient corroboration.

3. Whether the Appellant was an Accused at the Time of Making the Statement:

The Court explored whether the appellant was a person accused of an offence when he made the statement. It was determined that the appellant was not an accused at the time of giving the statement under Section 108 of the Act. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra, to support this conclusion. The Court held that the appellant became an accused only when a formal complaint was filed, and summons were issued.

4. Validity of the High Court's Reversal of the Magistrate's Acquittal:

The Court assessed whether the High Court erred in reversing the Magistrate's acquittal. It was found that the High Court properly appreciated the evidence and reached the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the High Court did not need to wade through every reasoning of the Magistrate but addressed relevant aspects in detail. The High Court's approach was deemed correct in law, and its findings were upheld.

5. Determination of the Appropriate Punishment:

The Court modified the sentences imposed by the High Court. Instead of imprisonment, the appellant was sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 for the offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold (Control) Act, respectively. In default of payment, the appellant would undergo imprisonment for two months and one month, respectively.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of the retracted confessional statement, provided it was voluntary and true. The requirement for corroboration was affirmed, but it need not be for each detail. The appellant was not considered an accused at the time of making the statement. The High Court's reversal of the Magistrate's acquittal was validated, and the sentences were modified to fines with default imprisonment terms.

← Previous Next →