SEVANTILAL KARSONDAS MODI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1160 · Decided: 30-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
I 160 
SEY ANTILAL KARSONDAS MODI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER 
January 30, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Evidence Act 1872 (I of 1872)-S. 24--Accused alleged 
that 
ht 
wa• 
a5saufrl'd by Custo1::s Officials-No direct 
cvide1~cc available-Surrounding cir-
c111n.\ttt1:ce'I-lj could be taken into accou11t--Cu~u11ns Officials lvhether person 
in t111thori!y- -Confrssion made to customs official~· if adfnis.~ibfe in evidence. 
On receipt of information that smuggled gold was stored in it. a large num-
C 
ber of senior officials of the Customs Department surrounded the flat belong-
ing to the brother-in-la\V of the appellant and started searching it. 
According 
to the prosecution, while the search was on, the appellant was found peeping· 
from outside through the grille forming part of the flat, and started running 
away, on seeing that the search was being carried 
on in the flat. 
He was 
chased by the Customs Staff and caught. 
Later his confession was recorded. 
Along with the appe11ant several other' persons had also been tried for 
the 
D 
same offence. 
The- trial court convicted and 
ientenced the appellant of an 
offence under s. 120B !PC read with s. 135 (I )(a) of the Customs Act. 
On appeal the High Court found that the charge under s.135(l)(a) and 
(b) of the Customs Act was not sustainable bl1t holding that the offence under 
other heads 
\V<J~ proved, it upheld the appell:>nt's conviction and sentence. 
It was contended on behalf of the appel1111t lhat the. confession \Vas the result 
E 
of an a~sault on him by the Custon1s Officials, which not being voluntary. wa~ 
inadmissible in evidence under s. 24 of the Evidence Act 
A11owing the appeal. 
HELD : 1. (i) It is unsafe to regard the appellant's confession as voluntary 
~ ~­
and therefore trustworthy. 
The concerned Customs Officials were "persons in 
authOrity" wvithin the meaning of that expression used in s. 24 of the Evidence 
' 
c 
F 
Act. 
The confession may well have been obtained in a manner which \vould· 
..... 
bring it within the ambit of s. 24 of the Evidence Act. 
The appellant has 
been able to prove the existence of circumstances which make it highly prob· 
able that his confession is hit by the mand'.!te in section 24. 
[1169H-l 170A, 
I 166CJ 
(ii) Although there is no direct evidence that force was used on the appel-
G 
lant to extract a confession the surrounding circumstances prevalent at the rele-
vant tin1e in the Customs House where the statement was recorded indicate 
that all was not well with the manner in \vhich the 
interrogation of variou, 
accused was being ca,rried on. 
They indicate that the Customs Officials did 
not stick to ethical standards in the performance of their duties and exhibited 
nluch zeal in bringing the captives to book and had transgres~ed the limit sc1 
bv low. 
fl I 66E, 116?Bl 
H 
(iii) One of the accused in this case was found to have seven injuries on 
his person. The stand of that accused that he was coerced 
into 
making 
a 
confession. received support from the testimony of the doctor who examined 
' 
• 
• 
s. K. MODI v. MAHARASHTRA (Koshal, I.) 
1161 
him so that the probo.bility appears to be that the accused received his injuriel' 
on the hands of the Customs staff. In the absence of an explanation of the prose-
cution as to the situation in which he was beaten, it is reasoooble to presume 
that the stand taken by him was correct and that the injuries were inflicted a! 
a measure of coercion adopted to secure his confession. Taking these circum-
stances intc consideration, it is unsafe to re:gard the appellants confession too 
as voiuntnry. 
[1166F. 1168C, 1169G] 
Besides, the plea that he had been coerced into making the confession was 
taken at the earliest opportunity i.e. on the day following 
his 
release from 
custo<lv en 1.,.;]. 
fl 169Dl 
2. Being a close relation of the owner of the fl.at, the Clppellant was perhaps 
sharing the flat \Vith him _and so had duplioote set of keys; his brother-in-law 
might have given the Bandi found on the appellant not for the 
purpose of 
carrying the gold but just for use as an ordinary raiment. 
It is also possible 
that the appellant became nervous, that he thought that he would be implicated 
in the crime and therefore, might have started running away on seeing the 
Customs Officers in the house. 
Therefore, these factors on which the 
High 
Court relied for sustaining his conviction cannot be regarded as incrimina

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