Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(SC) 127
SUPREME COURT
Not mentioned, Not mentioned
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Bal Mukund and Basanti Lal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 964 and 1108 of 2000
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. B. Singh
For the Respondents: Sushil Kumar, Santosh Kumar
Confessions cannot be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration, especially when retracted, highlighting the necessity of strict procedural compliance in narcotic cases.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 18, 27, 42, and 55 - Confessions and Evidence - Confessions made by the accused were retracted and not corroborated by independent evidence, leading to their acquittal - High Court found prosecution lacking in establishing compliance with statutory requirements, and also the admissibility of confessions against co-accused. (Paras 13, 41)
Facts of the case:
The case involved alleged transportation of narcotics and confessions made under coercive circumstances, which were retracted.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held the retraction of confessions and lack of corroboration invalidated the conviction.
Issues: The admissibility of confessions of co-accused without independent corroboration and compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence for confessions to be admissible and the importance of statutory compliance during narcotic investigations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The High Court acquittal was based on lack of independent corroboration for confessions and non-compliance with statutory safeguards; retracted confessions cannot form basis for conviction without corroboration. (!) - Confessions of co-accused under S.67 can be admissible only to lend assurance to other evidence and not as sole basis for conviction; retracted confessions require independent corroboration. (!) (!) - Standing Instructions No. 1/88 and S.55 procedures for sampling and sealing of narcotics must be strictly followed; failure undermines reliability of prosecution. (!) (!) (!) - The information under S.42(1) must be recorded in writing and communicated to superiors; absence of written secret information or proper recording invalidates proceedings. (!) (!) - The Court emphasizes safeguards for suspects under NDPS, including rights relating to interrogation, voluntariness, and the need for corroboration, especially given the severity of penalties. (!) (!) - Appellate court upheld acquittal due to absence of independent corroboration and failure to prove conspiracy or voluntariness; convictions based solely on confessions were not sustainable. (!) (!)
What is the effect of retracted confessions on conviction and the need for independent corroboration under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
What are the requirements for admissibility and use of co-accused confessions under S.67, S.30, and related provisions in NDPS Act, and how do they interact with reliability and independent corroboration?
What is the appropriate standard for sufficiency of evidence when confessions are retracted and independent corroboration is lacking, particularly in narcotics cases with stringent statutory safeguards?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of arrest and confessions made. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. confessions regarding the origin of opium and subsequent implications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. high court's reversal of conviction based on confession validity. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. arguments on confession admissibility and necessity for corroboration. (Para 14 , 18) |
| 5. judgment highlights importance of procedural compliance. (Para 41) |
1. Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 964 and 1108 of 2000.
2. The factual matrix involved herein is as under:
Sub Inspector Bajrang Lal posted in the Office of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Ratlam purported to have obtained a secret information to the effect that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein Bal Mukund and Basanti Lal would be carrying about 20 Kg. of Opium on the next day. A preventive party allegedly was formed pursuant to or in furtherance of the said information. At about 0430 hours on 21.06.1998, they reached Nayapura Phanta on Ratlam Jaora Road. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were seen carrying cement gunny bags. They were searched. 10 Kgs. of Opium packed in 5 polythene bag of 2 Kg. each from each of them were said to have been recovered.
3. The purported confessions of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded on 21.06.1998, unofficial translated version whereof reads as under:
"Statement of Respondent No. 1
... My father is debt ridden to Amritlal Anjana out of Rs. 38000/- out of which Rs. 18000/- has been paid now. Their balance is Rs. 20,000/-. This sum of Rs. 38000/- were given to me by Amritlal Anjana for motor for well and some amount was taken in cash. Amritlal suggested that if I wishes to liquidate my father's debt then I should away opium and give it to suggested destination. I shall give good wages against it. A sum of Rs. 3000/- were decided for carrying the opium. I came from my village Nandwell to Behpur and Basantilal who is my relative. Both met Amritlal Anjana at 10-00 night at his well Amritlal Anjana by Giving 10-000 Kgs each of us with the opium and directly to go on feet towards Nandi. He also said he would be available nearly Nandi Phanta. He said, he would give Rs. 3000/- to each by way of wages when we came on foot by & carrying 10-000 Kgs of opium and reached Nayapura Phatak then Narcotics officers detained us and took our formal search. He found opium in the bag mean for cement weight 10-000 Kgs. Which was seized by Narcotics Deptd. Raltmal and I was detained for carrying illicit opium weight 10-000 Kg. under the office of N.D.P.C. This statement I am giving voluntarily and in full consciousness whether is spoken is underwritten to which I having read and finding it to be correct put my signature.
Statement of Respondent No. 2
... On further interrogation stated that they are opium weighing 10 kg and 10 kg opium from my colleague has been recovered for which on interrogation I state truly that on 20-06-1998 Balmukund came to my village Behpur and said that we have to go to Maukhedi at the residence of Amritlal S/o Raghunath Anajan therefore I alongwith Balmukund proceeded for Behpur come to Maukhedi who Amritlal Anjana and that we should go to his well where I shall give you opium or reached the well Amritlal Anjana gave me in a bag of 10 kg of opium and 10 kg to my colleague Balmukund and we should go on foot on unconstructed road and reached Nanda Phatak where I will be awaiting nearly and collect the opium, we were coming on foot towards Nandi then Narcotics officer took our search then in the bag. I was carrying opium weighing 10 kg. was recovered and 10 kg. of opium was also recovered from my colleagues Balmukund. The opium so recovered was taken into government possession under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The statement which I have made is in full consciousness, voluntarily and whatever I stated is only written to which I hearing / read put my sign
