Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted an NDPS appellant whose involvement rested solely on co-accused statements. Even assuming Section 67 statements could constitute confessions, they were not substantive evidence against another accused and could only lend assurance to independent evidence. No such linking evidence existed here. The broader Section 67 admissibility question, then pending before a larger Bench, was not decided.
Issues
- Whether co-accused statements alone could sustain the appellant’s conviction under the NDPS Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applied the rule that a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence and may only lend assurance after independently sufficient prosecution evidence is assessed. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 67, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Assumed for purposes of decision that the recorded statements could amount to confessions, without resolving the larger-Bench issue; the Act contained no special provision making them substantive evidence against another accused. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)
Held
- The question whether Section 67 statements could be treated as confessional was already referred to a larger Bench. This appeal was resolved even on the prosecution-favourable assumption that the statements were confessions. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Under Kashmira Singh and the Constitution Bench decision in Hari Charan Kurmi, the court must first assess evidence independent of a co-accused’s confession. Such a confession cannot found conviction or replace substantive evidence, though it may lend assurance to other sufficient evidence, absent a special statutory exception. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The prosecution accepted that no material other than co-accused statements linked the appellant to the crime. Call records concerning a Dubai contact did not establish contact with the apprehended co-accused. Conviction solely on their statements was therefore unsustainable. (¶¶ 5, 6, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. Immediate release directed unless custody was required in another offence.