Madras HC Upholds Acquittal Of Alleged Heroin Funders, As The Only Evidence Was A Co-Accused’s Inadmissible Confession

In brief

The question

1. Whether the acquittals of A1 and A3 could be set aside when the only material implicating them was A2’s statement to NCB officials.

The court held

The Court held that the acquittals were supported by plausible reasons and disclosed no perversity warranting appellate interference.

It also directed

It also found no ground to interfere with A2’s sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that A1 and A3 provided funds to A2 to procure heroin for smuggling to Sri Lanka.

pp. 1–3

A2 was apprehended at Chennai airport with 2.825 kg of heroin in his baggage and was convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), receiving the minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000.

pp. 1–3

The trial court acquitted A1 and A3 of all charges and acquitted A2 of the offences under Sections 28 and 29, finding no evidence against them beyond A2’s statement to officials.

pp. 1–3

The NCB appealed against the acquittals; the appeal also concerned the sentence imposed on A2.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the acquittals of A1 and A3 could be set aside when the only material implicating them was A2’s statement to NCB officials.

pp. 4–5

ii.2. Whether A2’s acquittal under Sections 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act warranted interference in the absence of evidence establishing conspiracy.

p. 5

iii.3. Whether the minimum sentence imposed on A2 required appellate interference.

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

Under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, a confession made to an officer empowered under the NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence.

p. 5

Under Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the confession of a co-accused cannot, by itself, be the basis for finding another accused guilty; it may only lend assurance to other evidence.

pp. 4–5

The Court considered the charged offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21, 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution’s burden to establish the offences with admissible evidence.

pp. 1–2, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 377

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 21 Section 28 Section 29 Section 50

04Reasoning

The prosecution relied on A2’s statement to implicate A1 and A3 in funding the heroin purchase, but presented no independent evidence to corroborate it.

p. 5

In light of Tofan Singh, the statement was inadmissible; even under the principle in Kashmira Singh, a co-accused’s confession could not alone sustain guilt.

p. 5

The Court therefore found no evidentiary basis to disturb the acquittals of A1 and A3.

p. 5

It likewise found no evidence establishing conspiracy by A2, and no infirmity in the minimum sentence imposed on him.

p. 5