Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 January 2008
- Bench
- Justices Altamas Kabir and B. Sudershan Reddy
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18, 29, 42, 53, 67; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 24 to 27; Constitution of India — Article 20(3)
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's conviction and sentence were maintained (para 41). In 2020 the Supreme Court, by majority in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, overruled this judgment.
Key holdings
- A Section 67 statement is not the same as a statement under Section 161 of the Code unless made under threat or coercion, and may be used as a confession (para 38).
- The bar of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) arises only once the person is placed in the position of an accused (para 36).
- Officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not police officers, following Raj Kumar Karwal (paras 37-38).
- A retraction application that was neither proved at trial nor decided does not water down the confession (para 40).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Muthuswami v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 4
No hard and fast rule on corroboration of a retracted confession; corroboration may be required where the circumstances raise doubts about its genuineness (cited by counsel for the appellant).
- Puran v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 459
Unless a retracted confession is corroborated in material particulars, it is not prudent to base a conviction on it alone (cited by counsel for the appellant).
- Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam (2004) 7 SCC 779
Same view on a conviction based on a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code (cited by counsel for the appellant).
View all precedents (13)
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Distinction between confession and admission; a retracted confession requires the court to be assured that the retraction was an afterthought and the earlier statement true (cited by counsel for the appellant).
- Bharat v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 950
A court may take a retracted confession into account but must weigh the reasons for the confession and the retraction (as considered in Navjot Sandhu).
- Haroon Hazi Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra (1968) 2 SCR 641
Considered in Navjot Sandhu on the evidentiary value of a retracted confession.
- Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963) Suppl. 1 SCR 689
A retracted confession may found a conviction if true and voluntary; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not of law; the Court traced the consistent view on such statements to this case.
- A.K. Mehaboob v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (2001) 10 SCC 203
NDPS decision on Sections 42 and 67 statements, cited by both sides.
A confessional statement made in custody may be relied upon if voluntary; even after arrest, Article 20(3) does not bar a voluntary self-incriminating statement supported by corroborating evidence.
- Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964) 6 SCR 623
The court must begin with other evidence before relying on the confession of a co-accused (cited by counsel for the appellant).
- M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 8 SCC 449
Cited for the Union of India in support of conviction on a confessional statement.
- State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962) 3 SCR 10
A statement made in police custody is not by itself compelled testimony; Article 20(3) requires that the person stood in the character of an accused when he made it (cited for the Union of India).
- Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 409
DRI officers vested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so a confessional statement recorded by them is admissible.
