Dive into the intricacies of legal analysis surrounding confessional statements in cases under the NDPS Act. The Court’s detailed examination of the admissibility and implications of confessions made before officers under Section 53 sheds light on critical legal principles. Let’s unravel the significance of key provisions and precedents in determining the validity and impact of confessional statements in such cases.
Facts
- Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh were found guilty of conscious possession of heroin.
- Death penalty awarded to Balwinder Singh was considered too harsh and converted to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment.
- Confession made by an accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be grounds for conviction.
- Balwinder Singh’s previous conviction under the NDPS Act influenced the sentencing decision.
- Satnam Singh, a government servant, was sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment.
- The High Court rejected the defense version presented by Satnam Singh regarding the contraband.
- Evidence from the confessional statements and prosecution witnesses led to the conviction of both accused
- The High Court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act based on confessional statements and evidence.
- On 11 December, 2005, NCB received information about persons selling contraband in a white Indica car from Amritsar to Chandigarh.
- Upon searching the car, packets wrapped in khaki tape were found in the rear seat and door panel.
- Accused persons were examined and witnesses were presented in their defense.
- One accused claimed innocence and alleged bribery by NCB officers.
- Chemical examination confirmed heroin in the seized packets.
- Both accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC.
- A witness was mentioned to be a stock witness of NCB.
- Satnam Singh admitted to bringing heroin from Amritsar with Balwinder Singh for sale in Chandigarh.
- Balwinder Singh was arrested later based on information.
- NCB submitted a complaint against both accused under NDPS Act sections.
- Accused denied charges and went to trial.
Also Read: Time as Essence of Contract in Sale Agreement: Legal Analysis
Issue
- Officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are considered ‘police officers’ under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Confessional statements made to these officers are barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Such statements cannot be used to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
Also Read: Retirement Age of PTI/Sports Officer in University
Arguments
- The appellant – Balwinder Singh’s argument was based on the inadmissibility of the confession made by the co-accused, Satnam Singh, before NCB officials.
- The appellant – Balwinder Singh, had previously been acquitted in three other cases related to offenses under the NDPS Act.
- The counsel for the appellant – Satnam Singh, challenged the judgment primarily on five counts including the testimony of Sonu being questioned as untrustworthy.
- The plea of the accused being in the custody of the NCB much before the ‘naka’ was laid was another point raised by the appellant – Satnam Singh.
- The defense witnesses were analyzed in comparison with the prosecution witnesses, but the trial court’s adverse presumption against the accused was upheld by the High Court.
- An argument was made regarding the unreliability of the testimony of the independent witness, Sonu, and the defense version that Sonu was the one found in possession of the contraband.
- Issues were raised regarding the handling of the case property and discrepancies in describing the contraband in the panchnama versus the Chemical Examiner’s testimony.
- The prosecution successfully established that Satnam Singh was driving the car when he was accosted at the spot where the naka was laid by NCB Officers
- The burden of proof shifted to the accused, and they failed to prove their innocence
- The foundational facts to attract the NDPS Act were proved, including possession of contraband by the appellants
- Balwinder Singh was not apprehended along with Satnam Singh in the Indica car
- Satnam Singh’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicated Balwinder Singh and the Sarpanch
- NCB officers claimed they were on the lookout for both Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh after they allegedly ran away
- The NCB successfully indicted Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh
- None of the NCB witnesses were planted
- The appeal was pressed for an acquittal on merits to potentially reverse the dismissal from service of Satnam Singh, a Government servant
Analysis
- In 2013, the High Court accepted arguments that officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence are not considered ‘police officers’ under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Confessional statements made by accused before officers of the NCB are deemed admissible in the absence of a non obstante clause.
- Previous decisions like Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal were overruled as they did not state the law correctly.
- The burden of proof is higher for the prosecution in cases involving serious offenses.
- The standard of proof required for the accused to prove innocence is lower compared to the prosecution’s burden.
- In the case of Noor Aga, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the NDPS Act, emphasizing a heightened scrutiny test and proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
- Judgments like Noor Aga and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan were considered correct in law, while others referring to contrary principles were overruled.
- In 2020, a Bench re-examined the classification of investigating officers under the NDPS Act and the treatment of statements recorded under Section 67 as confessional.
- Conviction of Satnam Singh not solely based on his confessional statement to NCB officials.
- A photocopy of the car registration certificate was found on Satnam Singh during a search.
- Investigation took place at an isolated location during late hours.
- Consistent testimonies of independent witnesses helped in establishing the case.
- Initial burden of proving Satnam Singh’s knowledge of narcotics transportation was met by the prosecution.
- Presumption under Section 35 of NDPS Act invoked against Satnam Singh for culpable mental state.
- Legal requirement of contraband possession and recovery under Section 50 of NDPS Act explained.
- Balwinder Singh acquitted due to lack of independent incriminating evidence apart from confessional statements.
- Rejection of confessional statements recorded by NCB officials affecting Balwinder Singh’s conviction.
- Chemical Examiner’s report confirmed heroin in seized samples from Satnam Singh’s car.
- Incident details and legal provisions related to the search process (Section 100 of Cr.P.C.) outlined.
- Confessional statements made by an accused to an officer under Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be used in trial as such officers are considered ‘police officers’ under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also cannot be used as confessional statements in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
- The defence witnesses produced by the appellant were not considered helpful in demonstrating that Mukesh Kumar was a stock witness.
- The procedural discrepancies pointed out by the appellant’s counsel were not deemed significant enough to weaken the prosecution’s case against the appellant.
- The court concluded that the appellant, Satnam Singh, failed to establish a case for acquittal based on the arguments and evidence presented.
Decision
- Criminal Appeal No. 1933 of 2014 dismissed, order of conviction and sentence on Satnam Singh affirmed
- Order of conviction and sentence on Satnam Singh maintained
- Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2014 allowed, Balwinder Singh acquitted
Case Title: BALWINDER SINGH @ BINDA Vs. THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001136-001136 / 2014
