Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 859 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTConviction under NDPS Act - Admissibility of evidence - Whether or not the statement made by the accused before the Customs Officer is admissible in evidence - Held that:- retracted confessional statement made by an accused before the Customs Officer, alone is not enough to bring home guilt to the accused. It is required to be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence. It is admitted fact that the alleged confessional statements of the accused in the present case are retracted ones. Therefore, prosecution was required to prove its case by leading corroborative and cogent evidence - The prosecution projected these accused to connect the co-accused/appellants, with the crime. However, once the story put forth by the prosecution qua accused, Harbans Singh and Baljit Kaur stands disbelieved by the trial Court, on the same set of evidence, the story qua remaining three accused, also becomes doubtful. In the instant case, the owner of the car from which the alleged recovery was effected, has not been associated by the prosecution. It has also not been able to make out a case that the accused-appellants were earlier known to each other and were in conspiracy. Non examination of witness - held that:- PW-6, H.K. Kaushik, Inspector, Customs and Excuse, deposed that the case property was never produced before the Court after 20.07.1992. The alleged recovery in the instant case is of 20.07.1992 itself. On 11.12.1992, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, came to the Customs Office. The seizing officer took out the case property from the Malkhana and the same was produced before the Magistrate - it is not proved that the present surviving appellant was in conscious possession of the case property. He was not aware as to what luggage he was carrying for his master, being the driver of the car. He has also explained as to how he came in possession of the contraband in the form of luggage. The defence version put forth by the accused appears believable and probable than the prosecution version. So, the benefit is extended to the accused/appellant - case is full of discrepancies, the alleged recovery has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, and in the absence thereof, benefit has to go to the accused - Appellant is so poor that even after grant of bail on 27.01.2004, he could be released only on 26.11.2007, as he could not furnish bail bonds earlier - Therefore, The appellant is stated to be on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged - Decided in favour of appellant.
|