Confession Statement Of Co-Accused By Itself Cannot Be Reason For Accused’s Implication In Crime: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for the implication of the accused in the crime.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which the Application for discharge was dismissed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal said, “As is evident from the said Section, the alleged offence is consumption of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than those specified in or under clause (a) of Section 27, NDPS Act, and therefore, the question is whether any material is available to charge the appellant thereunder. The contention of the appellant is that he has been arraigned as accused No.13 based on the confession statement of co-accused viz., accused No.1. Certainly, in the absence of any other material on record to connect the appellant with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal represented the Appellant while AOR D. Kumanan represented the Respondent.

Facts of the Case -

As per the prosecution case, Accused No. 1 owned 10 acres of coconut grove where he ran a resort in the name and style “Agrinest” (without approval from the Government). Accused No. 2 managed the same along with others like Accused Nos. 3 and 15 and the Accused Nos. 11 and 12 arranged for conducting a music fest in the said resort and also for supplying narcotic substances to the participants during the programme. Accused No. 14 was brought from Russia to attract youngsters to the programme and the Accused No.1 went to Kerala and purchased 200 grams of cannabis besides bringing drinks from other States from unknown persons and brought all such items to the resorts. At night, a large group of youngsters from Tamil Nadu and Kerala thronged there to participate in the music programme.

During the programme narcotic substances were given to the Accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9 & 13 and they consumed the same. Accused Nos. 15, 8 and 10 also consumed the same and abetted commission of offences like supply of narcotics. In connection with the said incident, an FIR was registered and in the said FIR, the Appellant was shown as Accused No.13 and was accused of commission of offence under Section 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). After the investigation, a final report was filed against all the accused and as per the same, the Appellant was charge sheeted only for offence under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. Resultantly, the Appeal was filed by the Accused No. 13 against dismissal of his application for discharge before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, remarked, “… a co-accused’s confession containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against him. The materials on record would reveal that the investigating agency had not subjected him to medical examination and instead, going by complaint Witness No.23, he smelt the accused. The less said the better and we do not think it necessary to comment upon adoption of such a course. We need only to say that even if he tendered such evidence, it would not help the prosecution in anyway.”

The Court noted that, there is no case that any recovery of contraband was recovered from the Appellant and as regards the confession statement of the Appellant in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that it is inadmissible in evidence.

“In this context it is worthy to refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics4. In the said decision, this Court held that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act would make confessional statement of accused before police inadmissible in evidence and it could not be brought on record by prosecution to obtain conviction. Shortly stated, except the confessional statement of co-accused No.1 there is absolutely no material available on record against the appellant”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded 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.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgment, and discharged the accused.

Cause Title- Karan Talwar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1012)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, AOR Pritha Srikumar Iyer, and Advocate Saumya Sinha.

Respondent: AOR D. Kumanan, Advocates Deepa. S, and Sheikh F. Kalia.

Click here to read/download the Judgment