Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
C.K. Santhosh – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 10719 of 2025, Crl. M.P. No. 7154, 7156 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For the Appellant : V.C. Vinoth Kumar
For the Respondent: A. Gopinath
Confession statements without corroborating evidence are inadmissible in trial proceedings.
Headnote:This Court analyzed the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 482 of Cr.P.C, noting that the petitioner, implicated solely based on a co-accused's confession without additional evidence, challenged the charge sheet. The Court found the confession statement inadmissible, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling on similar grounds. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, allowing the trial against the first accused to proceed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the charge sheet is challenged based on insufficient evidence. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. court determines the inadmissibility of confession against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. confession statements are inadequate without recovery or corroborative evidence. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. proceedings quashed against petitioner; trial for first accused to proceed. (Para 6 , 9 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the charge sheet in CC No.138 of 2025 pending on the file of Learned I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act Cases at Chennai and to quash the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of Police received a secret information that the accused along with the petitioner intended to sell Ganja by keeping the same in their home. Thereafter, on enquiry, the first accused handed over the alleged Ganja weighing 8 kgs and other articles to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police took two samples of each weighing 50 grams from the alleged Ganja and arrested the first accused. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.758 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. On completion of investigation, final report has been filed and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.138 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act Cases at Chennai.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as second accused. He has been implicated as an accused. Except the confession statement, there is no other material to implead the petitioner as accused. Pursuant to the confession statement, there is no recovery from the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that on the confession statement of the first accused, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused. From the first accused, the passbook of the petitioner has been seized. The first accused confessed that the first accused along with the petitioner involved in selling of Ganja.
7. A perusal of records revealed that there are two accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as second accused. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused, only on the confession statement of the first accused. On the strength of the confession statement, there is no recovery from the petitioner. That apart, there is no incriminating material available to attract the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act as against the petitioner, except the confession statement.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in MANU/SC/1372/2024 in the case of Karan Talwar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“ 12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material available against the Appellant is the confession statement of the co-Accused Viz., Accused No.1, which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial and against the Appellant. When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the Appellant to stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at the trial stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand the trial.”
9. Thus, it is clear that solely on the confession
