Confessional Statements of Co-Accused Deemed Inadmissible; Lack of Evidence Leads to Quashing
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Aasif Mohammad, who was implicated in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The proceedings were related to a Special Case No. 125 of 2021, arising from Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021, which alleged involvement in the smuggling of 20,000 bottles of phensedyl.
The court, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, concluded that the confessional statements of co-accused made to police officers were inadmissible as evidence. The court emphasized that without substantial independent evidence, such statements cannot be the sole basis for prosecution or conviction. This aligns with the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which renders any confession made to a police officer during custody inadmissible in court.
The case against Aasif Mohammad emerged when police apprehended two individuals in possession of narcotics, who alleged that the contraband belonged to Mohammad. However, the investigation revealed no tangible evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution's reliance on telephonic conversations was unsupported by call detail records or any financial evidence connecting Mohammad to the alleged offense.
The judgment drew upon precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, highlighting that confessional statements to police officers are not admissible under the NDPS Act. The court underscored that allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute a miscarriage of justice and could potentially lead to harassment.
The State's argument that Mohammad was involved in the narcotic trade was dismissed due to the absence of concrete evidence. The judgment, therefore, directed the quashing of proceedings against him, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice without prejudice or unfounded allegations.
This verdict serves as a reminder of the legal framework safeguarding individuals from wrongful prosecution based solely on inadmissible confessions. It also reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that prosecutions are grounded in credible and substantial evidence.
Bottom Line:
Confessional statement of a co-accused made to a police officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis for prosecution or conviction.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 21(c), 29; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 25; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482.
