Co-Accused's Section 67 Statement and First-Time Dock Identification Cannot Convict an Absconder: Supreme Court

Acting on secret information, an NCB team with panch witnesses went to the ST Bus Stand at Kheda on 30.01.2003 and saw two men matching the description; one handed a bag to the other and walked away (paras 2-3). Anwarkhan, holding the bag, was caught with 2 kg 30 g of heroin; the other man escaped (para 3). Firdoskhan was later traced through the Madhya Pradesh Police, brought to the NCB office and his Section 67 statement recorded (para 4). The trial court convicted both under Sections 21, 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act with ten years' rigorous imprisonment, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed their appeals (paras 1, 7-8).

The panch witness, an Income Tax Department employee, was independent and reliable (para 16). Section 42 did not apply because the information concerned a bus stand, a public place governed by Section 43 (paras 17-18), and Section 50 did not apply because the heroin was in a bag held in the hand, not found on a personal search (para 19). The seizure, sampling and chain of custody were proved, so Anwarkhan's guilt was established (paras 20-22). Firdoskhan was not caught at the spot or named in the panchnama, and no one asked Anwarkhan who his companion was (para 24). His name first appeared in Anwarkhan's Section 67 statement, recorded after an arrest apparently deferred on paper to avoid Article 20(3); that statement is inadmissible under Tofan Singh and doubtful in any case (paras 25-27). No record of his detention in Madhya Pradesh was produced (para 28). The only identification was an NCB officer's first-time dock identification more than two years later, uncorroborated, and nothing was recovered from him (paras 29-31).