Confessional statements made before a police officer are inadmissible in evidence, and there must be legally admissible evidence to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant, Mohammad Ayoub Wani, has challenged judgement dated 27.01.2014, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby appellant along with other co-accused has been convicted for offences under Section 20/28/29 of the NDPS Act. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 13.02.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, whereby appellant, in proof of aforesaid offences, has been sentenced to under a rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2008, the police of Police Station, CIK, Srinagar, received an information from reliable sources that the appellant along with co-accused Mohammad Shakoor Khatana, Mohammad Imran Bhat and Feroz Ahmad Lone, under a well-knit conspiracy, are in the process of smuggling a huge quantity of Charas which they have concealed in the body of the vehicle (Tavera) bearing registration No.MH02N-7852 to some place out of State. As per the information, the Charas was proposed to be smuggled by the appellant and the co-accused to Ahmadabad, Mumbai etc. and the money that would be received in this connection would be used in militant activities. On the basis of this information, FIR No.03/2008 for offences under Section 20/28/29 of NDPS Act was registered with Police Station, CIK, Srinagar, and investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-10, DSP Sajad Hussain.

3. The Investigating Officer along with other officials of the police proceeded to Pantha Chowk and laid a Naka overthere. They intercepted a vehicle bearing No. MH02N-7852, which, at the relevant time, was being driven by accused Feroz Ahmad Lone and accused Mohammad Imran was also travelling in the said vehicle. Upon questioning, the aforenamed two accused denied presence of charas in the vehicle but after sustained interrogation, they disclosed that the charas has been concealed inside the body of the vehicle. The two accused claimed that they are only carriers of the contraband and, in fact, the same belonged to appellant and co-accused Mohamed Shakoor Khatana. The vehicle was taken to CIK office Batamaloo whereafter the appellant and co-accused Mohammad Shakoor Khatana were arrested from Sumbal and brought to CIK headquarters, where co-accused Mohamed Shakoor in presence of the Executive Magistrate recovered 11 packets of charas that was lying concealed inside the body of the vehicle. After investigation of the case, offences under Section 20/28/29 of NDPS Act were found established against the appellant and the co-accused and the chargesheet was laid before the trial court.

4. On 03.05.2008, the appellant and the co-accused were charged for offences under Section 20/28/29 of the NDPS Act and their pleas were recorded. The appellant and the co-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prior to that, on 29.04.2008, accused Mohammad Imran was declared as juvenile and a direction was issued for presentation of a separate challan against the said accused before the appropriate forum.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove charges against the appellant and co-accused produced ten witnesses, namely, PWs Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Sareer Ahmad, Constable Firdous Ahmad, Sarfaraz Ahmad Khan, Imran Qureshi, Bashir Ahmad Balkhi, Lateef Ahmad Kakroo, Shakeel Ahmad Wani, Bilal Ahmad Najar and DSP Sajad Hussain.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellant and the co-accused and their statements under Section 342 of the J&K Cr P. C were recorded. Appellant Mohammad Ayoub Wani while making his statement denied his connection with the alleged transportation of the charas. He stated that he had not concealed the charas inside the vehicle in question nor he had engaged the said vehicle for transportatio