VOLUNTARY CONFESSION: COURTS NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED ABOUT ITS ACCEPTABILITY

What is NDPS Act?

NDPS act refers to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, according to which the provisions for control and regulations of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. According to this act any person who sells, purchase, transport, store or consume any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is punishable. Also it provides forfeiture of property derived from or used illicit traffic in narcotic drugs psychotropic substance shall also be punishable.

Background History

Supreme Court in Mohammed Fasrin vs. State, held that the even if the confessions made are admissible, the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also it has to be assured that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording confession. In this case the accused was solely convicted on the basis of the confession made by the co-accused and that no collaborative evidence was adduced to it, of which the court said that such evidence are merely hearsay evidence.

The fact of the case was such that, on 4 Jan. 2003 the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Department got the information that the 7.4 kgs of heroin would be carried in Toyota vehicle. The officers when apprehended the vehicle parked at Tamil Nadu Hotel of Madurai, and the 7.4 kgs of heroin was recovered. The accused was caught and was bought in custody. There one of the accused made the confession in detail about the whole process of such transfer. According to him he narrated as to how they come in contact with one other. The person Mohammed gave the co-accused the car in which heroin was kept, which the co-accused was to deliver to another man Nalliappan in Hotel from there Nalliappan was to deliver such Heroin to the appellant. On the basis of such confession the all accused was convicted and the District and Sessions Judge of Madurai and High Court of Madras, has upheld the conviction order of the accused along with three other under he offence committed under Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused was convicted under sec 8(c) read with 27 (A) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and fine 1,15,000.

  In an appeal filed by the appellant to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the confession so made by the co-accused, the interlinking of 2 more person that is Mohammed and Nalliappan was missing, they were neither caught by investigating authority nor was interrogated, and therefore the Supreme Court was of the view that the such was merely hearsay evidence as after the conviction so made it is on the investigating authority on how they investigate and how the evidence they need to prove. 

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Therefore the SC held that for the conviction of the accused it is necessary that the confession made can be admissible but can be considered as weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence needs to be attach to it. And therefore it was held that, “We, accordingly, find force in the appeal. We hold that both the Trial Court and the High Court wrongly convicted the accused. We set aside the judgment of both the Courts below. Appeal is accordingly allowed. The  accused is already on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.”

By-

Sakshi Raje

Student Reporter, INBA