“Confession Alone Can’t Convict”: Madras HC Quashes NDPS Charges, Says ‘No One Should Face Trial Based Solely on Co-Accused’s Statement
Isabella Mariam
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused of harbouring a co-accused in a narcotics trafficking case. The Court held that the prosecution had relied solely on the confession of a co-accused without any independent material or corroborative evidence. It held that the continuation of proceedings would subject the petitioner to an unjustified trial.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal allowed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Indian Penal Code. The Court quashed the charge sheet in the pending case before the trial court, observing that the petitioner had been implicated solely based on the confession of a co-accused without the support of admissible or corroborative evidence. The Court held that there was no material to justify framing of charges against the petitioner and allowed the petition accordingly.
The criminal original petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 159 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Pudukottai District. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 272 of 2023 registered at Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
According to the prosecution, a total of seven accused, including the petitioner (arrayed as A7), were allegedly involved in the illegal transportation of 105 kilograms of ganja, purportedly intended for delivery to Sri Lanka via boat. On 26 November 2023, at approximately 9:15 a.m., the respondent police intercepted a four-wheeler bearing registration number TN 38 BZ 3420, which belonged to A2, and found it loaded with the contraband. A1 to A3, who were allegedly involved in the act, fled the scene in an auto-rickshaw and were picked up by A5 in a car. The investigation alleged that A3 later contacted the petitioner, A7, and informed him of the incident. It was claimed that the petitioner then harboured A3, arranged his relocation to Tirupur, and facilitated his employment at a private firm named Solar Planet.
The police charged the petitioner under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The basis for implicating the petitioner was the confession statement of A3.
The petitioner, through counsel, submitted that there was no material to indicate that he had any knowledge of A3's involvement in the narcotics trafficking incident, and that he merely helped A3 with a job in Tirupur. The counsel contended that this act, without knowledge or intent, did not constitute harbouring under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. It was argued that except for the confession of A3, there was no evidence collected during investigation implicating the petitioner.
The prosecution, through the Government Advocate, opposed the petition, arguing that the confession of A3 implicated the petitioner, who was a relative of A3, and that he had harboured the accused knowing his involvement in the crime. The State submitted that the petitioner must face trial.
Justice P. Dhanabal recorded the judicial reasoning in detail, noting that the primary basis for the petitioner’s inclusion in the charge sheet was the confession statement of co-accused A3. The Court observed:
“It is well settled law that only based on the confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate the accused, no charges can be framed.”
The Court examined the record and noted:
“In this case, this petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused only based on the confession statement of A3 and no other evidence is collected during investigation.”
Further, the Court stated:
“Even according to the confession of A3, the petitioner/A7 arranged job for A3 at Tirupur and the same will not amount to harbouring the accused.”
The Court found that there was “no piece of evidence that the petitioner had knowledge about the involvement of A3 in the kanja case” and concluded:
“Only because for arranging job to A3 at Tirupur, the petitioner cannot be roped in this case as an accused under Section 27(A) of NDPS Act.”
The Court also noted the absence of any investigation into the place of employment at Tirupur or examination of any relevant witnesses:
“The investigation officer not even examined any person where the A3 was working at Tirupur to implicate the petitioner as one of the accused.”
In support of its reasoning, the Court cited the Supreme Court decisions in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, noting:
“In the absence of any other materials on records to connect the accused with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime.”
“Except the confessional statement of co-accused No.1 there is absolutely no material available on record against the appellant.”
Based on the totality of the record, the Court found that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to subjecting him to a trial unsupported by evidence.
The Court issued the following final directive:
“In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.159 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. Act cases, Pudukottai District is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.”
It further directed: “Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate
Case Title: B. Karthick v. The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station and Another
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 22599 of 2024
Bench: Justice P. Dhanabal
[Read/Download order]
