1. Cultivation of ganja in reserve forest — Conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
Sasi
Versus
State Of Kerala
Case No. : 717 of 1998, 718 , 720 of 1998
Date of Decision : 8/10/99
Important Points
Confessions to unauthorized officers are admissible based on witness credibility. However, a co-accused's confession is only corroborative, not substantive evidence. Identification in court after a long delay without a test identification parade is insufficient for conviction if witnesses had no prior acquaintance with the accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(a)(b)(i) and (ii) - Confession of accused - No legal requirement that a confession must be made to an authorized officer to be admissible - Any person can give evidence in court regarding a confession made by an accused to them - The court must consider the credibility of the witness giving such evidence (Para 6).
(B) Evidence - Confession of co-accused - Confession made by a person against co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence - It can only be used as a corroborative piece - In the absence of reliable substantive evidence, a confessional statement cannot be used to convict co-accused (Para 10).
(C) Criminal Procedure - Identification of accused - Identification of accused in court after a significant lapse of time without a test identification parade is unsafe, particularly where the witnesses had no prior acquaintance with the accused and the accused were seen fleeing into a dense forest (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
Forest officers discovered large-scale cultivation of ganja in a reserve forest. One individual was apprehended at the scene and confessed to the cultivation along with others. Four other individuals escaped and were later identified in court. The trial court and High Court convicted all five individuals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the first accused is upheld as the confession was supported by evidence. However, the identification of the other four accused in court after four years, without a test identification parade or prior acquaintance, is unreliable. The confession of the first accused against the others is not substantive evidence and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of other reliable evidence.
Issues: Whether a confession must be made to an authorized officer to be admissible; whether identification of accused in court after a long delay without a test identification parade is sufficient for conviction; and whether a confession of one accused can be used as substantive evidence against co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession made to any person is admissible, subject to the credibility of the witness. A confession by a co-accused is only corroborative and cannot substitute for substantive evidence. Identification in court without a test identification parade after a long interval is insufficient for conviction if the witnesses did not previously know the accused.
Result: Appeal filed by the first accused dismissed; remaining appeals allowed and convictions set aside.
(B) Evidence - Confession of co-accused - Confession made by a person against co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence - It can only be used as a corroborative piece - In the absence of reliable substantive evidence, a confessional statement cannot be used to convict co-accused (Para 10).
(C) Criminal Procedure - Identification of accused - Identification of accused in court after a significant lapse of time without a test identification parade is unsafe, particularly where the witnesses had no prior acquaintance with the accused and the accused were seen fleeing into a dense forest (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
Forest officers discovered large-scale cultivation of ganja in a reserve forest. One individual was apprehended at the scene and confessed to the cultivation along with others. Four other individuals escaped and were later identified in court. The trial court and High Court convicted all five individuals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the first accused is upheld as the confession was supported by evidence. However, the identification of the other four accused in court after four years, without a test identification parade or prior acquaintance, is unreliable. The confession of the first accused against the others is not substantive evidence and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of other reliable evidence.
Issues: Whether a confession must be made to an authorized officer to be admissible; whether identification of accused in court after a long delay without a test identification parade is sufficient for conviction; and whether a confession of one accused can be used as substantive evidence against co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession made to any person is admissible, subject to the credibility of the witness. A confession by a co-accused is only corroborative and cannot substitute for substantive evidence. Identification in court without a test identification parade after a long interval is insufficient for conviction if the witnesses did not previously know the accused.
Result: Appeal filed by the first accused dismissed; remaining appeals allowed and convictions set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of search by unauthorized officer — Probative value of confession made to unauthorized person — Admissibility of co-accused's confession as substantive evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 )
3. Confessions to non-authorized persons are admissible based on witness credibility — Identification of accused after significant delay without test identification parade is unreliable. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. Confession of a co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence and requires reliable substantive corroboration to sustain conviction. (Para 10 )
5. Conviction of first appellant upheld; remaining appellants acquitted due to lack of reliable identification and substantive evidence. (Para 8 , 12 )
6. Is a confession admissible if made to an officer not specifically authorized to receive it?
Yes. There is no legal requirement that a confession be made to an authorized officer. Any person can provide evidence in court regarding a confession made to them, and the court determines its value based on the witness's credibility. (Para 6 )
7. Can a conviction be based on identification in court if the witnesses had no prior knowledge of the accused and no test identification parade was held?
No. It is unsafe to rely on court identification when witnesses had no prior acquaintance with the accused and no test identification parade was conducted, especially when the identification occurs years after the event. (Para 9 )
8. Can the confessional statement of one accused be used as substantive evidence against co-accused persons?
No. A confession made by a person against a co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence; it can only serve as corroborative evidence. In the absence of reliable substantive evidence, such a confession cannot sustain a conviction. (Para 10 )
(1) SIX persons were arraigned before the trial court for offences under Section 20(a)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") besides some other offences. The trial court convicted only 5 among them and acquitted the 6th accused. The convicted persons were sentenced to varying periods of imprisonment of which the maximum is imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000. All the 5 convicted persons filed appeals before the High Court but a Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. Those convicted persons have now come up with these appeals by special leave.
(2) THE case of the prosecution against the aforesaid convicted persons is as follows: PW 1 Forest Range Officer, accompanied by his colleagues, PW 2 and PW 3 went to the forest area in Palamala Reserve Forest on 2-2-1990 on information that ganja cultivation was being made in large scale inside the reserve forest. When the witnesses reached a particular spot they found a shed and they noticed 5 persons sitting there. On seeing the Forest Officers nearing the above shed the 5 persons made a bid to escape. But PW 1 and his colleagues succeeded in intercepting 1st accused Jose, but the rest of them made good their escape. The 1st accused confessed to PW 1 that he along with the other accused cultivated ganja in the said place. PW 1 registered a case against those accused of offences under the Forest Act and the Wild Life Preservation Act. The 1st accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. PW 1 later informed the local police that offences under the NDPS Act were also revealed. Upon the said information PW 6 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the spot and found the ganja cultivation. He collected some of the plants for the purpose of sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Exhibit P-14 report of the said laboratory shows that the said plants were of ganja.
(3) THE trial court and the High Court have found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against all the accused in regard to the offences charged and convicted them and sentenced them as aforesaid.
(4) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that PW 1 was not authorised to conduct any search as per the provisions of the NDPS Act and hence the search conducted by him cannot be relied on as evidence in a case under the Act. We find some force in the said contention, but that is of no use for the appellant in this case, for no evidence of the search conducted by PW 1 has been used against the accused. We also do not propose to use any such evidence against the accused. It may be pointed out that even the prosecution has not pitted such evidence against any one of them.
(5) LEARNED counsel next contended that the confession relied upon by the two courts attributed to the 1st accused has no probative value inasmuch as PW 1 was not authorised to receive such confession. Alternatively he contended that as a matter of fact the confession was made not to PW 1 but to an IFS Probation Officer who has not been examined in this case.
(6) BOTH the said arguments are fallacious. There is no legal requirement that a confession should be made to an authorised officer. Any person can give evidence in a court regarding a confession made by an accused to him. If such confession was made to a Magistrate the law requires the same to be recorded in the manner prescribed by law. If a confession is made to any other person the court has to consider whether the evidence of that person can be believed which depends upon the credibility of the witness giving such evidence in court.
(7) WE checked up Exhibit P-3 which is the written record of the confession made by the 1st accused to PW 1. It has been signed by PW 1 and the thumb impression of the confessioner has also been obtained therein. It is true that
