- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sasi And Another v. State Of Kerala .
Factual and Procedural Background
Six individuals were charged under Section 20(a)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with other forest-related offences. The trial court convicted five of them (A-1 to A-5) and acquitted the sixth. Varying sentences were imposed, the highest being ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000. The convicted persons appealed, but a Single Judge of the High Court affirmed both conviction and sentence. All five then approached the Supreme Court by way of special-leave appeals.
According to the prosecution, on 2 February 1990 Forest Range Officer PW-1 and colleagues PW-2 and PW-3 entered Palamala Reserve Forest after receiving information about large-scale ganja cultivation. They discovered a shed with five men. When approached, four escaped; PW-1 apprehended A-1 (Jose), who allegedly confessed that he and the others were cultivating ganja. PW-1 registered forest-law offences and later informed police of possible NDPS violations. Sub-Inspector PW-6 visited the site, seized cannabis plants, and the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed they were ganja (Exh. P-14).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether A-1’s conviction under the NDPS Act could stand when the search was conducted by PW-1, allegedly unauthorised under the Act, and when the confession’s admissibility was challenged.
- Whether the convictions of A-2 to A-5 were sustainable in the absence of direct identification or other substantive evidence apart from A-1’s confession naming them.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- PW-1 lacked authority under the NDPS Act to conduct searches; therefore, any evidence stemming from that search was inadmissible.
- The confession attributed to A-1 had no probative value because PW-1 was not empowered to record it, and in any event the confession was allegedly made to an IFS Probation Officer who was not examined.
- For A-2 to A-5, no credible identification took place: they were unknown to witnesses, not shown afterward, and no test-identification parade was held.
State’s Arguments
- A-1’s confession named A-2 to A-5; this statement could be relied upon to connect the co-accused with the crime.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first noted that PW-1’s lack of NDPS search authority was irrelevant because the prosecution had not relied on any material obtained through that search. Consequently, the conviction of A-1 did not depend on inadmissible evidence.
Addressing the confession challenge, the Court stated that law does not require a confession to be made to an “authorised” person; any witness may testify to a voluntary confession, subject to credibility assessment. Examination of Exhibit P-3 showed A-1’s thumb impression alongside PW-1’s signature and merely an additional signature of an IFS Probation Officer; nothing indicated the confession was made to that officer. The Court therefore accepted the confession as reliable evidence against A-1.
For A-2 to A-5, the Court found the identification evidence wholly unreliable. All witnesses admitted the men fled into dense forest and were not personally known to them. They identified the accused for the first time in court four years later without any prior test-identification parade. The Court held it “most unsafe” to base conviction on such dock identification.
The State’s reliance on A-1’s confession to implicate A-2 to A-5 was rejected; a confession is not substantive evidence against co-accused and can serve only as corroboration when independent evidence exists, which was lacking here.
Holding and Implications
Appeal of A-1 (Jose) dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed, sentences to run concurrently.
Appeals of A-2 to A-5 allowed; convictions and sentences set aside and they are acquitted, to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
The decision clarifies that:
- A confession need not be recorded by an “authorised” officer to be admissible, so long as its voluntariness and the witness’s credibility are established.
- Dock identification after a long lapse, without prior test-identification and absent familiarity with the accused, is unreliable for conviction.
- A co-accused’s confession lacks substantive evidentiary value against others in the absence of corroborative independent evidence.
No new precedent was expressly created, but the judgment reinforces established principles on confession admissibility and identification evidence under Indian law.
Order
1. Six persons were arraigned before the trial court for offences under Section 20(a)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) besides some other offences. The trial court convicted only 5 among them and acquitted the 6th accused. The convicted persons were sentenced to varying periods of imprisonment of which the maximum is imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000. All the 5 convicted persons filed appeals before the High Court but a Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. Those convicted persons have now come up with these appeals by special leave.
2. The case of the prosecution against the aforesaid convicted persons is as follows:
PW 1 Forest Range Officer, accompanied by his colleagues, PW 2 and PW 3 went to the forest area in Palamala Reserve Forest on 2-2-1990 on information that ganja cultivation was being made in large scale inside the reserve forest. When the witnesses reached a particular spot they found a shed and they noticed 5 persons sitting there. On seeing the Forest Officers nearing the above shed the 5 persons made a bid to escape. But PW 1 and his colleagues succeeded in intercepting 1st accused Jose, but the rest of them made good their escape. The 1st accused confessed to PW 1 that he along with the other accused cultivated ganja in the said place. PW 1 registered a case against those accused of offences under the Forest Act and the Wild Life Preservation Act. The 1st accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. PW 1 later informed the local police that offences under the NDPS Act were also revealed. Upon the said information PW 6 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the spot and found the ganja cultivation. He collected some of the plants for the purpose of sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Exhibit P-14 report of the said laboratory shows that the said plants were of ganja.
3. The trial court and the High Court have found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against all the accused in regard to the offences charged and convicted them and sentenced them as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that PW 1 was not authorised to conduct any search as per the provisions of the NDPS Act and hence the search conducted by him cannot be relied on as evidence in a case under the Act. We find some force in the said contention, but that is of no use for the appellant in this case, for no evidence of the search conducted by PW 1 has been used against the accused. We also do not propose to use any such evidence against the accused. It may be pointed out that even the prosecution has not pitted such evidence against any one of them.
5. Learned counsel next contended that the confession relied upon by the two courts attributed to the 1st accused has no probative value inasmuch as PW 1 was not authorised to receive such confession. Alternatively he contended that as a matter of fact the confession was made not to PW 1 but to an IFS Probation Officer who has not been examined in this case.
6. Both the said arguments are fallacious. There is no legal requirement that a confession should be made to an authorised officer. Any person can give evidence in a court regarding a confession made by an accused to him. If such confession was made to a Magistrate the law requires the same to be recorded in the manner prescribed by law. If a confession is made to any other person the court has to consider whether the evidence of that person can be believed which depends upon the credibility of the witness giving such evidence in court.
7. We checked up Exhibit P-3 which is the written record of the confession made by the 1st accused to PW 1. It has been signed by PW 1 and the thumb impression of the confessioner has also been obtained therein. It is true that one IFS Probation Officer has also affixed his signature therein. But there is nothing in Exhibit P-3 to show that the confession was actually made to the said IFS Probation Officer and not to PW 1. It appears that the courts below would have erroneously thought that the confession was principally made to the IFS Probation Officer, but factually it is not correct. A reading of the confession makes it abundantly clear that the 1st accused has owned that he was in the shed along with his associates and that he planted cannabis (ganja) in that particular area in association with others.
8. For the aforesaid reasons the conviction passed against the 1st accused for the offences under the NDPS Act does not require any disturbance.
9. But the position regarding the remaining appellants is different. None of them was caught by the Forest Officers who went to the spot. All the witnesses examined for proving that fact have said in court that they all fled from the scene and disappeared into the thick forest. Four years thereafter those witnesses said in court that those escaped persons were A-2 to A-5 in this case. None of those witnesses had a case that A-2 to A-5 were known to them earlier. None of them had any case that any of those accused was shown to these witnesses subsequently. No test identification parade was conducted either. In such circumstances it is most unsafe to believe the evidence of identification made by PWs 1 to 3 in the Court simply because they deposed that A-2 to A-5 were the persons whom they saw running fast and disappearing into the dense forest.
10. Mr K.M.K Nair, learned counsel for the State of Kerala contended that in the confessional statement made by A-1, he made mention of the names of A-2 to A-5 and that can be used as evidence against them. It is well settled that the confession made by a person as against the co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence. It can only be used as a corroborative piece. In the absence of any reliable substantive evidence as against A-2 to A-5 the confessional statement cannot be used for any purpose as against the co-accused.
11. Barring the above item there is nothing to connect A-2 to A-5 in this case.
12. In the result we dismiss the appeal filed by A-1 (Jose) (Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 1998) and while dismissing the appeal we order that the sentences passed against the appellant will run concurrently. We allow the remaining appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants therein. They are acquitted and we direct them to be released from jail forthwith unless they are required in any other case.
Alert