Madras HC Acquits Two Men In 951-Kg Ganja Case: No In-Court Identification, And Co-Accused Confessions Were The Only Evidence Tying Them

Police intercepted an Eicher lorry carrying 951 kg of ganja.

Two occupants, A-1 and A-2, were apprehended; A-3 Rajkumar and A-4 Jayakumar allegedly fled.

The trial court convicted all four under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

A-3 and A-4 appealed; A-1 and A-2 did not.

The State did not appeal the acquittals under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution relied on the co-accused’s statements, statements attributed to A-3 and A-4, and evidence that two persons fled from the lorry.

The appellants challenged the sufficiency and admissibility of that evidence.

Under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement to convict an accused; officers empowered under Section 53 of that Act are “police officers” for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Under Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction; it may only be considered alongside other substantive evidence.

The Court also relied on Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Mohammed Fasrin v. State, concerning the need for corroborative evidence before relying on confessional material.

The Court held that the statements of A-3 and A-4 to the investigating officer were inadmissible as confessions to a police officer and, alternatively, could not be used in view of Section 162 CrPC.

The Court found that the prosecution’s case against A-3 and A-4 rested principally on the statements of A-1 and A-2 and the statements attributed to the appellants during investigation.

The investigating-officer statements were inadmissible, while the co-accused’s confessions could not independently establish guilt.

Although P.Ws. 1 and 2 said that two persons fled, neither identified the appellants in court; P.W. 3’s evidence on that point was hearsay, and no identification parade had been conducted.

The Court therefore found no sufficient independent or corroborative evidence connecting either appellant to the contraband.

It set aside the convictions and sentences, directed that the appellants—then in custody—be released forthwith, ordered any fines paid to be refunded, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.