S. 67 NDPS Act | Additional Evidence Essential Before Acting Upon Co-Accused's Confession: J&K High Court

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Sekhri has reiterated that confession of co-accused alone cannot be taken into consideration for conviction of the accused, unless some other material is produced by the prosecution to indicate his involvement in the commission of the offences.

These observations came in response to a petition challenging the discharge of Ravinder Singh by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, in connection with a narcotics case.

The case originated when the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Jammu, received information about a narcotics consignment being transported in a truck. A joint operation by the NCB and local police led to the interception of the truck at Rajiv Nagar Chowk, Jammu. A substantial quantity of heroin, concealed in the truck, was seized, and the driver, Gurjit Singh, and conductor, Ravi Kumar, were arrested.

During the investigation, statements made by the arrested individuals implicated Ravinder Singh, who was then lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. Evidence collected included call detail records (CDRs) showing frequent communication between the accused and the respondent and records of their meetings in jail.

However, the trial court discharged Ravinder Singh, citing a lack of material evidence beyond the confessional statements of the co-accused, in compliance with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deems such statements inadmissible.

Representing the Union of India, Advocate Sumant Sudan argued that the evidence, particularly the CDRs and jail meeting records, provided sufficient grounds to frame charges against Ravinder Singh.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel, Anuj Dewan Raina, contended that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible and that the CDRs alone could not substantiate the charges.

Court Observations:

Justice Sekhri, after detailed deliberation, highlighted several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., which clarify the inadmissibility of confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act unless supported by additional evidence.

Citing Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence the bench recorded,

“Even if we are to proceed on the premise that such statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may amount to confession, in our view, certain additional features must be established before such a confessional statement could be relied upon against a co-accused.”.

The Court acknowledged the principle established in "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" that statements under Section 67 are inadmissible as confessions. However, it distinguished this from the situation at hand. The Court emphasized that the NCB had not solely relied on Gurjit Singh's statement but also on evidence of meetings in jail between Ravinder Singh and Gurjit Singh.

Similarly, the court pointed that the CDR reflecting the respondent's mobile phone location at the Central Jail during the relevant time had not been taken note of by the trial court. This evidence, according to the court, warranted examination during the trial.

In light of these considerations Justice Sekhri set aside the trial court's order, directing it to frame charges against Ravinder Singh and proceed with the trial.

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Ravinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment