Supreme Court acquits accused in NDPS case due to lack of corroborative evidence: Mohammed Fasrin vs. State (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 04 September 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 859

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Can a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) stand solely on the confession of the accused and a co-accused without any other supporting evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case. The court examined whether the conviction of an accused for offences under the NDPS Act was justified when the primary evidence consisted of confessional statements without any independent corroboration. The bench comprised of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

On January 4, 2003, the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Department received a tip that 7.4 kgs of heroin would be transported in a Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing registration number TN 31 C 9117, allegedly at the behest of the appellant, Mohammed Fasrin. The vehicle was located parked at the Tamil Nadu Hotel on the Madurai-Alagar Koil road. Upon inspection, 7.4 kgs of heroin was found inside the car. Accused numbers 2 to 6 were present in the vehicle at the time of seizure. Accused nos. 2 to 4 were convicted under various provisions of the NDPS Act. This appeal concerns only the conviction of Mohammed Fasrin.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, acting as the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, convicted the accused, including the appellant, on December 16, 2005. The Madras High Court upheld this judgment on February 19, 2008. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following provisions of the NDPS Act:

• Section 27A of the NDPS Act, which deals with the “Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.” It states, “Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viiia) of section 2 or harbours any person engaged in any of the aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.” The essential element is proving that the accused financed activities related to drug trafficking.
• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, which prohibits certain operations related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It states, “No person shall – (c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder…” This section prohibits the import or export of contraband substances.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on two pieces of evidence:

• The statement of a co-accused (accused no. 2), which implicated the appellant.
• The appellant’s own alleged confession recorded by PW-1 after his arrest.

The prosecution argued that the co-accused’s statement detailed how he received the heroin from one Mohammed in Bombay, who instructed him to deliver it to Nalliappan, who would then hand it over to the appellant. The prosecution contended that this, along with the appellant’s confession, was sufficient to prove the appellant’s involvement in financing and international smuggling of contraband.

The defense countered that the statement of the co-accused was hearsay and unreliable, as neither Mohammed from Bombay nor Nalliappan were examined or arrayed as accused. The defense further argued that the appellant’s confession, even if admissible, was a weak piece of evidence that required corroboration, which was absent in this case. The defense also raised concerns about the voluntariness of the confession and whether the appellant was apprised of his rights before making it.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction under the NDPS Act can be sustained solely based on the confession of the accused and a co-accused without any corroborative evidence.
2. Whether the confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible. (This issue was already referred to a larger bench in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu)

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court noted that the issue of admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was referred to a larger bench in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2013) 16 SCC 31]. The court proceeded on the premise that the confession was admissible but did not decide on this issue.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of corroborative evidence to support the confessional statements. The court emphasized that:

• The statement of the co-accused was hearsay and could not be relied upon without examining the individuals involved in the chain of events.
• The appellant’s confession, even if admissible, was a weak piece of evidence that required independent corroboration.
• The prosecution failed to produce any other evidence to link the appellant to the offense.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments and evidence presented and determined that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence when relying on confessional statements, especially when the accused is in custody. The Court noted that the confession of the co-accused was not reliable as it was hearsay and the persons to whom the co-accused referred to were not examined. The Court stated that “The confession of a co-accused gives a clue to the investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it is for the investigating officers to collect evidence against the said person who has been named by the co-accused.” The Court also stated that “It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence.” The Court held that “other than the two confessional statements – one of the co-accused and the other of the accused, the prosecution has gathered no evidence to link the appellant with the commission of the offence.” The court also stated that “Even if it is admissible, the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of this case.”

The Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitting the accused. The Court found that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to link the appellant to the commission of the offense. The Court emphasized that confessions, especially when made in custody, require strong corroborative evidence, which was lacking in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Confessional statements, especially those made in custody, require strong corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction.
• Statements of co-accused are considered weak and hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
• The prosecution must present independent evidence to link an accused to the commission of an offense, particularly in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
• The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that confessions are voluntary and that the accused is aware of their rights before making a statement.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds be discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained solely on the basis of confessional statements of the accused and co-accused without any independent corroborative evidence. This case reinforces the principle that confessions, especially custodial confessions, are weak pieces of evidence and require strong corroboration to be relied upon for conviction. This judgment clarifies the need for the prosecution to present independent evidence to link an accused to the commission of an offense, particularly in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Fasrin vs. State highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases, especially when relying on confessions. The court’s emphasis on the need for independent evidence underscores the principle that convictions must be based on solid proof, not merely on the statements of the accused or co-accused. The judgment serves as a reminder of the safeguards in place to protect the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial.