Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.21 r/w. s.29 – Conviction of appellant under, based on confessional statements of co-accused – Propriety of – Held: Confessional statement of 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 present case, apart from the statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question – 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 – Orders of conviction and sentence against the appellant set aside – Appellant acquitted – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.24, 25 and 27 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 – s.15.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Unlike Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 which specifically makes confession of a coaccused admissible against other accused in certain eventualities; there is no such similar or identical provision in the NDPS Act making such confession admissible against a co-accused. [Para 10] [344-D-E]
1.2 In the present case apart from the statements of coaccused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. On the touchstone of law laid down by Supreme Court such a confessional statement of a coaccused 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 coaccused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. [Para 14] [347-F-H; 348-A]
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar [1964] 6 SCR 623 – followed.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR
526 – relied on.
Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008) 4 SCC 668 : [2008] 1 SCR 350 ; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31 : [2013] 9 SCR 962 ; Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949) 76 Indian Appeal 147 ; State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 : [1999] 3 SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.