Chhattisgarh HC: Father Must Provide Maintenance and Marriage Expenses to Unmarried Adult Daughter  ||  Delhi HC Rules That ‘Hermès’ and the 3D Shape of its ‘Birkin’ Bag are Well-Known Trademarks in India  ||  Kerala HC: Arrest is Illegal if Accused isn’t Produced in 24 Hours and Rearrest From Prison is Barred  ||  Supreme Court: Treating Every Sour Relationship as Rape Undermines the Seriousness of the Offence  ||  Supreme Court: Section 7 IBC Application Cannot be Rejected for Curable Defects in Affidavit  ||  NCLT Kochi: Sec 7 Insolvency Cannot be Filed Against Guarantor Without First Enforcing the Guarantee  ||  Patna High Court: Mere Two-And-A-Half-Year Incarceration is Not Sufficient for Bail under UAPA  ||  Bombay HC: Insolvency Cannot be Used to Evade a Family Court’s Maintenance Order  ||  Kerala HC: Forklifts and Factory Cranes Are Motor Vehicles and Must be Registered under MV Act  ||  Guj HC: Edible Crude Palm Kernel Oil Qualifies for Duty Exemption; End-Use Condition not Applicable    

Shanti Lal Vs. Union of India - (High Court of Rajasthan) (10 Oct 2017)

Statement of a person recorded by officers of NCB or CBN after arrest of such person is inadmissible in evidence

MANU/RH/0999/2017

Criminal

The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused Appellant being aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, whereby, the Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and was sentenced to 15 years' RI & a fine of Rs. 1, 50, 000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 1/2 year's RI. The moot question which remains needs to be answered is as to whether the Trial Court was justified in admitting the confessional statement (Ex. P/21) as a material piece of evidence against the appellant and convicting him for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act on the basis thereof.

It is an admitted case from the record that, the members of the preventive force and the panchas could not identify the riders of the motorcycle on the fateful day. Thus, only two avenues were available to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. The first would be by resorting to Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act as per which, the owner or the person in control of a vehicle etc. can be convicted even if he is not present with the same. However, neither complaint was filed against the appellant for the said offence nor did the trial Court frame charge against him in that manner. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the prosecution strive for the Appellant's conviction on basis of the inference/presumption available under Sections 25 & 35 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has come out with a clear case that the Appellant was himself driving the motorcycle on the fateful day. For proving this fact, the only material piece of evidence available with the prosecution is the Appellant's confessional statement Ex. P/21. Admittedly, the prosecution did not make any endeavor to prove by any other evidence that the Appellant himself used or consciously and knowingly allowed his motorcycle to be used for transportation of the opium. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that, the Appellant could be held guilty of the charge because he was the registered owner of the offending vehicle is without any legal foundation.

The Appellant was roped into the case on the basis of information received during investigation that he owned the offending motorcycle. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove by cogent evidence that the appellant was present with the motorcycle on the date of seizure. Unquestionably, other than the Appellant's confessional statement Ex. P/21 recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove this fact. It is an admitted position as evinced from record that, the Appellant was arrested in connection with Sessions Case registered at the behest of NCB, Jodhpur and the information thereof was received at the CBN, Kota. The special P.P. representing the CNB filed a remand application in the trial Court for seeking the appellant's custody in the present case.

Law is well settled that the statement of a person recorded by the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or Crime Bureau of Narcotics(CBN) after arrest of such person is inadmissible in evidence as the same would be hit by the principles of the Evidence Act as well as the mandate of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which prohibit admitting a confession made by an accused in custody except a judicial confession. Thus, statement Ex. P/21 on the basis whereof, the Appellant was convicted in present case is inadmissible in evidence and the trial Court committed a grave legal error in relying thereupon. No other evidence was led by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

Tags : CONVICTION   STATEMENT   ADMISSIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved