Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideManohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan
2025:RJ-JD:33642
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1788/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 1 August 2025
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15, 29; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 60; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 161, 162, 437-A, 452; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 415
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed; the conviction under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and the sentence were set aside; the appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered released unless required in another case. The trial court must dispose of the contraband and decide on the vehicle (paras 9-13).
Key holdings
- Section 27 admits only information that distinctly relates to a fact discovered in consequence of it; if the police already knew the place, a later statement is inadmissible (paras 6.2, 6.7).
- An officer's account of what a person held in another case told him about the accused is hearsay and cannot sustain a conviction (para 6.5).
- Statements recorded during investigation are material, not evidence; they count only when affirmed on oath at trial (paras 7.1-7.2).
- Under the NDPS Act the burden on the prosecution is heavy; a conviction cannot rest on a single, shaky, non-substantive piece of evidence (para 8).
Brief Facts
On 07.09.2016 police of Sayala, Jalore set up a blockade; the occupants of a Bolero fled, and 13 sacks holding about 282 kg of poppy husk were recovered from it (para 2). The vehicles belonged to others, and the Bolero had been reported stolen in Ahmedabad (para 4.1). The appellant was tied to the case by a statement made months later by a man held in another case, and by a SIM card found in the Bolero that its subscriber had allegedly given him (paras 6.1, 7). On 19.10.2024 the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jalore convicted him, among other offences, under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 and imposed 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 1,00,000 fine (para 1).
Court's Findings
No prosecution witness connected the appellant with the vehicles or the contraband, and he was not shown to have had possession, control or even momentary custody of either vehicle (paras 4-4.1). The custodial statement of a person accused in another case, incriminating himself and implicating the appellant, fell within Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act; as no fresh fact was discovered in consequence, Section 27 could not save it (paras 6.1-6.3). Where the police already know the place of recovery, a later statement repeating it is inadmissible (para 6.2). The Sub-Inspector's account of what that person told him was hearsay (para 6.5). Relying on Pulukuri Kottaya, Mohmed Inayatullah and Vijender, the Court held that only information distinctly leading to a new discovery is admissible (paras 6.6-6.7). The SIM-card subscriber did not say on oath that he had given the SIM to the appellant, and statements to the police under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence (paras 7-7.3). No witness said the appellant used that number (para 7.4). The burden under the NDPS Act being heavy, the conviction rested on surmises and conjectures (paras 7.5-8).
Legal Principle
A custodial statement that leads to no fresh discovery is barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and is not saved by Section 27. A witness's statement to the police that he does not affirm on oath at trial is not substantive evidence and cannot found a conviction (paras 6.2-6.4, 7.1-7.2).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67
The "fact discovered" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place from which an object is produced and the accused's knowledge of it; only information relating distinctly to that fact may be proved.
- Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828
Only so much of the information as is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery is admissible under Section 27; the rest of the statement must be excluded.
- Vijender and Ors. v. State of Delhi (1997) 6 SCC 171
A witness's account of what another person told him is hearsay, inadmissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act; and Section 27 cannot be used where the fact had already been discovered before the disclosure.
