Confession recorded in custody is weak evidence, requires corroboration: Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court set aside a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act while reiterating that a confession made in custody, without corroborative evidence, makes for weak evidence..The appellant was convicted by the District and Sessions Court at Madurai for the offence of financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. This verdict was upheld by the Madras High Court, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court..The Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose observed that the conviction of the appellant hinged on two confession statements, one of which was made by a co-accused, and another by the appellant himself..Though the Court proceeded on the premise that the statement was in fact admissible, it went on to hold that there was no material on record to show that the confession was a voluntary statement, free from any pressure..The co-accused alleged that he was in touch with a certain Mohammad from Bombay, who had asked him to hand over around 7.4 kgs of heroin to another person, Nalliapan. Nalliapan would thereafter hand over the material to the appellant. Whether or not this exchange took place was not established by the prosecution, which only relied on the statement made by the co-accused and failed to establish the link. The Court said that in the absence of the link, the statement made for weak evidence..“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. In the present case no such corroborative evidence has been led.”.At this point, the Court pointed out that the issue of whether a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be construed as a confessional statement even if the officer who has recorded such statement was not to be treated as a police officer, has already been referred to a larger Bench..Therefore, without going into the admissibility of the confession, the Court remarked on the strength of such a confession forming the basis of a conviction..“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 further added that the corroborative evidence to this confession was the statement of the co-accused, which is “of no material value”. The prosecution also fell short in bringing evidence before the Court to prove that the prerequisites of recording a confession were fulfilled. The judgment goes on to observe,.“…[T]he 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 found that these statements did not make for strong enough evidence to convict the appellant, and therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant..Advocates Shikhil Suri , Shiv Kumar and Shilpa Saini appeared for the appellants..[Read the judgment]