Statement of Co-Accused is Inadmissible to Implicate Another Accused Without Independent Corroborative Evidence

The applicant sought the quashing of three FIRs (III C.R. Nos. 380/2018, 404/2018, and 413/2018) registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The applicant was not originally named in the FIRs but was subsequently arraigned as an accused based solely on the statements of co-accused persons recorded during the investigation.

The applicant managed a licensed liquor shop in the Union Territory of Diu (licensed in his mother's name), and the prosecution alleged he was involved in the illegal transport of liquor into Gujarat.

1. Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained against an applicant when the sole incriminating material is the statement of a co-accused.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs where no independent evidence connects the accused to the alleged crime.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Principle from P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157), which clarifies that a confessional statement of an accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used to implicate a co-accused under Section 30 except during a joint trial as a rule of prudence to lend assurance to other evidence.

Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, which dictate that admissions can generally only be used against the maker.

The court observed that the applicant held a valid license to operate a liquor shop in Diu and found no evidence on record—other than the statements of co-accused—to suggest that the seized prohibited liquor belonged to the applicant or was transported by him into Gujarat.

Applying the principles from P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, the court reasoned that statements made by an accused before the police are hit by the rigors of the Evidence Act and cannot form the sole basis for arraigning or prosecuting a co-accused.

As there was a total lack of independent material to connect the applicant to the offences, the court determined that continuing the proceedings would be an empty exercise and an abuse of the legal process.

The High Court allowed all three applications and quashed FIR III C.R. No. 380/2018, III C.R. No. 404/2018, and III C.R. No. 413/2018, along with all consequential proceedings, specifically as they pertained to the applicant.