Confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused, Supreme Court. The accused acquitted.
July 31, 2018
A Bench of Judges, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit passed Judgment in Surinder Kumar Khanna V. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2018 and acquitted the appellant due to lack of evidences.
The facts of the case are:
On a specific information that narcotic drugs were going to be transported from Jammu side to Chandigarh via Hoshiarpur in a white colour Indica car bearing registration no.PB-02AJ-7288, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short 'DRI') laid picket at toll barrier at Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road. At 10:35 hours, they intercepted an Indica car of white colour which was coming from Hoshiarpur side bearing registration No.PB-02AJ-7288. The car was being driven by one Raj Kumar @ Raju whereas one Surinder Pal Singh was sitting next to him. To ensure safe search of the car and personal search of occupants, the car was taken to the office of Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. The officers of DRI served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act upon said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh.
As desired by said suspects, their personal searches and that of the car
were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and Shri SJS Chugh,
Senior Intelligence Officer. Personal searches of the suspects did not
result in recovery of any incriminating material However, when the car was
searched, four packets wrapped with yellowish adhesive tapes were found
concealed in the door of dickey of the car. The gross weight of those four
packets came to 4.300 kg. Each of those packets was containing white colour
granules/powder which gave a very pungent smell. The pinch of each packet
was tested, which showed the presence of heroin. The recovered heroin
weighing 3.990 kgs was valued at Rs.19,95,000/-. Those four packets were
taken into possession. Two representative samples of 5 gms each were taken
out from each of the packets as per rules. Indica car was also seized by the
officers of DRI. Statements of both the suspects were recorded. From their
statements, it transpired that four packets of heroin had been taken from
one Mr. Goldy r/o Vijaypur, Jammu and those packets were to be delivered to
a person of African origin near PGI Chandigarh.
Initially a complaint under Sections 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 60 of the NDPS
Act was lodged against said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh. During
investigation, the involvement of the present appellant in the drug racket
was said to have been made out. After the appellant was arrested, a
supplementary complaint was presented against him and the matter was taken
up with the main complaint. After hearing arguments, charges were framed
against said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh and the appellant for
the offences under Sections 21, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution, in support of its case examined four witnesses. After
hearing submissions, the trial court convicted and sentenced all three
accused. The appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) read with Section
29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default whereof to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for three years. Similar orders for conviction and
sentence were recorded against other two accused namely Raj Kumar @ Raju and
Surinder Pal Singh. All three convicted accused preferred appeals; namely
Criminal Appeal No.D-955-DB-2013 was filed by Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder
Pal Singh while Criminal Appeal No.D-798-DB-2014 was preferred by the
appellant. Both these appeals were heard together by the High Court.
As regards the appellant, it was observed by the High Court that he was specifically named by co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh in their statements. Apart from such statements nothing was produced on record to indicate the involvement of the appellant. The High Court however found that the case against the appellant was made out. The High Court thus affirmed the order of conviction as recorded against the appellant but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1.5 years. Similar orders of sentence were passed in respect of other co-accused namely Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh.
While acquitting the appellant the Supreme Court said that "In the
present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of
co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the ppellant in
the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that
is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the
touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a
co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence
against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to
lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence it
would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the
statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be
acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this
appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence and acquit the
appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless his custody is
required in connection with any other offence."
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Surinder Kumar Khanna V. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, Criminal No. 949 of 2018 dated 31.7.2018