TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeals of accused 5, 8, 9. Sentences upheld for 5, 9; reduced for 8. Confessions admissible.</h1> <h3>Laxman Padma Bhagal And Ors. Versus The State</h3> The appeals of accused Nos. 5, 8, and 9 were dismissed. The sentences of accused Nos. 5 and 9 were maintained, while the sentence of accused No. 8 was ... - Issues Involved:1. Conspiracy to smuggle gold.2. Participation of accused Nos. 5, 8, and 9 in the conspiracy.3. Admissibility of confessions.4. Corroboration of accomplice evidence.5. Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Conspiracy to Smuggle Gold:The prosecution established that a conspiracy existed to smuggle gold into India, evading the prohibition and defrauding the government of its dues. This conspiracy involved some unknown persons in the Persian Gulf, accused Nos. 14 and 15, and the persons found in the house of Govind (accused Nos. 1 to 3, Kashinath, and Ismail). The modus operandi included trans-shipping gold from mechanized vessels from Dubai to local boats arranged by Govind, and then transporting the gold to different places in Bombay.2. Participation of Accused Nos. 5, 8, and 9 in the Conspiracy:- Accused No. 5 (Laxman Padma Bhagat): He participated in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th trips of smuggling gold. He was at the shore when gold was brought in the 2nd and 3rd trips and helped carry the packages to Govind's house. In the 4th trip, he helped remove gold from the shore to Govind's house but ran away when the police arrived. The evidence against him included the testimonies of Kashinath and Devchand, his confession (Exhibit Z-18), and the confessions of co-accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, and 10.- Accused No. 8 (Haroon Haji Abdulla): He participated in the 3rd and 4th trips. In the 3rd trip, he was introduced as a trusted man by accused No. 15 and helped transport gold in a car. In the 4th trip, he was waiting near Govind's house with a car to carry gold but ran away when the police raided the house. The evidence included Kashinath's testimony and the confessions of accused Nos. 1 and 4.- Accused No. 9 (Ayub Kassim Kika): He participated in all the trips and the reconnaissance trip. He fixed the rendezvous point for the trans-shipment of gold, accompanied the gold from the foreign vessel to the shore, and helped transport it to various locations. The evidence included Kashinath's testimony, his own confession (Exhibit Z-33), and the confessions of accused Nos. 1, 4, and 10.3. Admissibility of Confessions:The confessions of accused Nos. 5, 8, and 9, as well as their co-accused, were challenged under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits the use of confessions made to police officers. However, the court held that the officers who recorded the confessions were Customs Officers, not police officers, and thus the confessions were admissible. The court also addressed the argument that the confessions were obtained under threat, but found that explaining the provisions of section 171A of the Sea Customs Act did not constitute a threat under section 24 of the Evidence Act.4. Corroboration of Accomplice Evidence:The court acknowledged that the evidence of an accomplice requires corroboration from an independent source. However, it noted that in some cases, the statements of multiple accomplices corroborating each other could provide sufficient assurance of truthfulness. The court relied on the testimonies of Kashinath and Devchand, along with the confessions of the accused, to find sufficient corroboration.5. Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:Accused No. 9 argued that his confession was obtained in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court held that on the date accused No. 9 made his statement, there was no formal accusation against him that would result in prosecution, and thus he was not a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3). Therefore, his confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.Conclusion:The appeals of accused Nos. 5, 8, and 9 were dismissed. The sentences of accused Nos. 5 and 9 were maintained, while the sentence of accused No. 8 was reduced from two years to one year, considering the minor role he played in the conspiracy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
