Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mohammed Fasrin, who was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the trial court and the Madras High Court. The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 29, 21, 23(c), and 27A of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 15 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000. The case arose from an incident on 04.01.2003 when the Narcotic Department received information that 7.4 kgs of heroin would be carried in a Toyota Qualis vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted at Madurai, and the contraband was recovered from a false compartment. The appellant was not present at the scene; he was implicated based on the confession of a co-accused (A-2) and his own alleged confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The co-accused's statement (Ext.P41) detailed that he received the heroin from a person named Mohammed in Bombay, who instructed him to deliver it to one Nalliappan, who would then hand it over to the appellant. Neither Mohammed nor Nalliappan were examined or made accused. The Supreme Court held that the confession of a co-accused is weak evidence requiring corroboration, and the statement was hearsay. The appellant's own confession, recorded after arrest, lacked proof of voluntariness and also required corroboration. Without any corroborative evidence, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and acquitted the appellant, discharging his bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 27A - Financing Illicit Traffic - Essential ingredient of offence under Section 27A is that prosecution must prove accused financed directly or indirectly activities under Section 2(viiia)(i)-(v) or harboured any person engaged in such activities - In the present case, prosecution only alleged financing but led no evidence of any financing by appellant - Held that conviction under Section 27A cannot be sustained without proof of financing (Paras 1-2). B) Evidence Law - Confession of Co-Accused - Weak Evidence - Confession of co-accused is a very weak type of evidence which needs to be corroborated by other independent evidence - In this case, the only evidence against appellant was statement of co-accused (Ext.P41) which was hearsay as it narrated what another person (Mohammed from Bombay) had told the co-accused - Neither Mohammed nor Nalliappan were examined or arrayed as accused - Held that such uncorroborated confession of co-accused cannot form basis of conviction (Paras 4-5). C) Evidence Law - Confession in Custody - Need for Corroboration - Even if confession recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act is admissible, court must be satisfied it is voluntary and accused was apprised of rights - No such material on record - Confession recorded when accused is in custody is weak evidence requiring corroboration - In this case, no corroborative evidence was led - Held that even if confessions are admissible, evidence is insufficient to convict (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 8(c) read with 29, 21, 23(c) and 27A of the NDPS Act can be sustained solely on the basis of the confession of a co-accused and the appellant's own alleged confession without any corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant, who was on bail, had his bail bonds discharged.
Law Points
- Confession of co-accused is weak evidence requiring corroboration
- Confession recorded in custody must be voluntary and corroborated
- Financing under Section 27A requires direct or indirect proof of financing
- Hearsay evidence cannot link accused to offence
