Case Note & Summary
The case involved two appeals against a judgment of the Gauhati High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellants, Raju Premji and Arun Kanungo, were convicted for abetment in the possession of heroin by other accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the sale of drugs, leading to their arrest following a police operation. The appellants contended that their confessions made while in custody were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and that they had retracted their statements. The court analyzed the legality of the confessions, emphasizing that they were made while the appellants were in police custody, thus violating the provisions of the Evidence Act. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were in possession of the contraband, and the burden of proof did not shift to them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, finding the confessions inadmissible and ordering the release of the appellants if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Admissibility of Confessions - Confessions made during police custody - Confessions made by the appellants while in police custody were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that any confession made while in custody of a police officer is not admissible unless made in the presence of a Magistrate, thus rendering the confessions void (Paras 19-24). B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Burden of Proof - The burden of proof did not shift to the appellants as they were not found in possession of the contraband - The court held that since the appellants were not in possession of the drugs, the prosecution failed to establish its case against them (Paras 26-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the confessions made by the appellants while in custody were admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act and whether the prosecution proved the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, ruling that the confessions made by the appellants while in police custody were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants were in possession of the contraband, and thus the burden of proof did not shift to them. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
Law Points
- Admissibility of confessions
- Custodial interrogation
- Section 26 Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 67 NDPS Act
- 1985
- Burden of proof
