SC: Confession of Co-Accused Alone Cannot Justify Implicating an Accused in Crime

Post By 24law
December 22, 2024

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the confession statement of a co-accused cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for implicating another individual in a crime. Setting aside an order of the Madras High Court, the Apex Court discharged an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), citing the absence of any substantive evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence.

Background

The case revolved around a music festival conducted at an unapproved resort in Tamil Nadu, where narcotics were allegedly distributed and consumed. The appellant, Karan Talwar (Accused No. 13), was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act based on the confession of a co-accused. No contraband was recovered from him, and there was no independent evidence to substantiate his involvement. The appellant sought discharge, but his plea was rejected by the trial court and later by the Madras High Court. Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

SC's Observations

A Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal emphasized the inadmissibility of co-accused confessions under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Referring to the Court's precedents in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998) and Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (1952), the Bench reiterated that “a co-accused’s confession containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame a charge against him.”

The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any corroborative material linking the appellant to the crime. It noted, “The sole material available against the appellant is the confession statement of the co-accused...which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial.”

Verdict

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court discharged the appellant, holding that compelling him to stand trial in the absence of admissible evidence would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court observed, “Standing the trial is an ordeal, and where there is no material that could be translated into evidence at the trial stage, it would be unjust to force the person concerned to undergo the process.”