Supreme Court quashes charges against accused in NDPS case, relying on lack of evidence: Karan Talwar vs State of Tamil Nadu (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 1012

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a person be charged with a crime based solely on the confession of a co-accused, without any other corroborating evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court’s ruling clarifies the evidentiary standards required to proceed with a criminal trial, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence beyond mere suspicion. This judgment has significant implications for criminal procedure and the rights of the accused. The bench was composed of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with the judgment authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a music festival organized at a resort in Tamil Nadu. The prosecution alleged that the resort owner (Accused No. 1) and others organized the event and supplied narcotic substances to the participants. The appellant, Karan Talwar (Accused No. 13), was accused of consuming narcotics during the event. The prosecution’s case against Karan Talwar rested primarily on the confession statement of a co-accused (Accused No. 1). No independent evidence, such as medical examination or recovery of contraband, was presented against him.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District Judge (ADJ) dismissed the appellant’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The High Court of Madras also dismissed the Revision Petition filed against the ADJ’s order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India challenging these orders.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, which deals with the punishment for consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. It states:

“27. Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. — Whoever, consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable, —

(a) …….

(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is other than those specified in or under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.”

The court also considered Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which renders confessions made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence. Additionally, the court examined the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a judge to discharge an accused if there is insufficient ground to proceed against them.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he was implicated in the case solely based on the confession statement of a co-accused (Accused No. 1).
• He contended that no other evidence, such as medical examination or recovery of contraband, was presented against him.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998 INSC 364], which held that a co-accused’s confession is insufficient to frame charges.
• He further argued that his own confession to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant based on the co-accused’s confession.
• The State contended that the lower courts had correctly applied the principles for framing charges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the application for discharge filed by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The following legal provisions were considered by the court:

• Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: This section specifies the punishment for consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those specified in clause (a).
• Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a judge to discharge an accused if there is insufficient ground to proceed against them.
• Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section makes confessional statements made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. [2010 INSC 61]: The court referred to this case to understand the scope of power under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
• Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2010 INSC 624]: The court relied on this case to understand the principles for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
• Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998 INSC 364]: The court followed this case, stating that a co-accused’s confession is not enough to frame charges.
• Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics [2011 INSC 342]: The court referred to this case, stating that the confession to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [2019 INSC 568]: The court used this case to highlight the need for material to support a strong suspicion for framing charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence against the appellant. The Court emphasized that a person cannot be made to stand trial based solely on the confession of a co-accused. The absence of any other corroborating evidence, such as medical examination or recovery of contraband, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court also took into consideration that a trial is an ordeal and should not be imposed on a person without sufficient evidence.

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the co-accused’s confession was sufficient to frame charges but rejected it, emphasizing that a strong suspicion must be founded on some material that can be translated into evidence at the trial stage. The Court also considered the fact that standing trial is an ordeal and should not be imposed on a person without sufficient evidence.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”
• “The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence.”
• “When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to stand the trial.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The court’s decision means that in cases under the NDPS Act, mere suspicion or the confession of a co-accused is not enough to frame charges. There needs to be some independent evidence to connect the accused with the crime. This decision upholds the principles of fair trial and the rights of the accused.

Key Takeaways

• A person cannot be charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act solely based on the confession of a co-accused.
• Independent evidence, such as medical examination or recovery of contraband, is necessary to frame charges.
• Confessions made to the police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The court should not act as a mere post office but must sift the material before it to determine if a prima facie case exists.
• Standing trial is an ordeal and should not be imposed on a person without sufficient evidence.

This judgment will likely impact future cases under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for a higher standard of evidence before framing charges. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the discharge of the appellant (Accused No. 13) from the case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person cannot be charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act solely based on the confession of a co-accused. This case reaffirms the existing legal position that a co-accused’s confession is insufficient to frame charges against another accused and that independent evidence is required to proceed with a criminal trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Karan Talwar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2024) clarifies that a person cannot be charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act based solely on a co-accused’s confession. The Court emphasized the need for independent evidence and the inadmissibility of confessions made to the police. This decision upholds the principles of fair trial and the rights of the accused, ensuring that no one is made to stand trial without sufficient evidence.