FRANCIS STANLY@ STALIN versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 14-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

FRANCIS STANLY@ STALIN
v.
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU,
THIRUV ANANTHAPURAM
DECEMBER 14, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
A
B
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Prosecution
under-Accused not found in possession of contraband articles-Prosecution C
on the basis of statement of accomplice and his own confessional statement-
Statement made before an officer authorized under the Act-Conviction by
courts below-On appeal, held: Conviction not justified-Accused entitled to
benefit of doubt-Jn view of the facts of the case statement of accomplice and
confession of accused cannot be relied upon.
Criminal Trial:
Evidence of accomplice-Admissibility-Held: Such evidence is
admissible under Section I 33 of Evidence Act-However, as a rule of prudence,
such evidence should ordinarily be corroborated by some other evidence-
D
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 133 and 114(b).
E
Confessional statement-Made before authorized officer-Reliance on--
Held: Though such statement is not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act, yet
it must be subject to closer scrutiny than a confession made to private citizens
or officials who do not have investigating power under the Act-Evidence
Act, 1872-Section 25.
F
Accused No. 1 was found in possession of contraband articles. Accused
No. 1 in his statement mentioned name of appellant-accused-2 alleging that
he had handed over the articles to Accused-I. Appellant-accused gave his
confessional statement. He was prosecuted. He denied the charges. He was G
held guilty by courts below and convicted under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the evidence of this case, it would not be safe to maintain H
977
978.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.
A the conviction of the appellant, and he must be given the benefit of reasonable
doubt. There is no allegation that the appellant himself was found in
possession of any narcotics to accused No. 1. The only evidence against the
appellant is the retracted statement of accused No. 1 and the appellant's own
retracted confession. (982-E; 980-E-FJ
B
2. There is some taint in the evidence of an accomplice, and the
reason for this obviously is that an accomplice's evidence is looked upon with
suspicion because to protect himself he may oe inclined to implicate the co-
accused. It cannot be said that the evic!ence of the accomplice can never be
relied upon, since such evidence is admissible under Section 133 of the
C Evidence Act. However, Section 133 has to be read along with Section 114(b)
of the Evidence Act, and reading them together the law is well settled that the
rule of prudence required that .the evidence of an accomplice should ordinarily
be corroborated by some other evidence. (981-A-C)
Chonampara Chellappan v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1979) SC (1761);
D Piara Eingh v. State of Punjab, (1969) 3 SCR 236 and Suresh Chandra Bahri
v. State of Bihar, AIR (1994) SC 2420, relied on.
3. While it is true that a confession made before an officer under the
NDPS Act may not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, yet such a
confession must be subject to closer scrutiny than a confession made to private
E citizens or officials who do not have investigating powers under the Act. Hence
the alleged confession made by the same appellant must be subjected to closer
scrutiny than would otherwise be required. (982-C-E)
M Prabhulal v_. Assistant Director of Revenue Intelligence, (200~) 8
SCC 449; T. Thomson v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (2002) 9 SCC 618; State
F (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afasan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 and
Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 409, referred
to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 996 of
G 2006.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.4.2004 of the High Court
of Kerala at Emakulam in Crl. A. No. 217 of 2002.
B. Kumar, V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for the
H Appellant.
..
FRANCIS STANLY !ff STALIN''· INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU (MARKANDEY KATJU. J.( 979
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the Respondent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. This appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 5.4.2004 in Criminal
Appeal No. 217 of 2002.
B
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellant was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.