Retracted customs statements and doubtful seizure evidence cannot sustain conviction without voluntariness and corroboration.

Retracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, taken during illegal detention and promptly retracted, were held unreliable in the absence of proof of voluntariness and independent corroboration, so they could not by themselves sustain a conspiracy charge. The search and seizure evidence also failed to establish recovery beyond doubt because the independent panch witness was found unreliable on material aspects and the departmental evidence, with contradictions and gaps, did not satisfactorily connect the tempo or the accused to the alleged contraband. The acquittal was therefore affirmed for failure to prove either conspiracy or recovery with reliable evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon to prove the alleged conspiracy and involvement of the accused. (ii) Whether the search and seizure evidence, including the testimony of the panch witness and the panchanama, proved possession and recovery of the contraband beyond doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon to prove the alleged conspiracy and involvement of the accused.

Analysis: The statements were found to have been recorded when the accused were in illegal detention and were not produced before the competent court within the prescribed time. The record also showed prompt retraction on first production before the Magistrate, and the surrounding circumstances including injuries on the persons of some accused supported the inference that the statements were not voluntary. In the absence of independent corroboration, the retracted statements could not safely form the sole basis of a conviction for conspiracy.

Conclusion: The conspiracy charge was not proved and the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were rightly rejected as unreliable.

Issue (ii): Whether the search and seizure evidence, including the testimony of the panch witness and the panchanama, proved possession and recovery of the contraband beyond doubt.

Analysis: The only independent panch witness was found unreliable on material aspects, including his presence at the spot, his version regarding employment and movements, and his identification of the accused. Once his testimony was discarded, the evidence of the departmental officers by itself was insufficient to inspire confidence. The prosecution also failed to satisfactorily connect the tempo with the accused or to remove contradictions and other gaps in the evidence. The panchanama therefore did not establish a trustworthy recovery.

Conclusion: The recovery and seizure of the contraband were not proved with reliable evidence.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was affirmed because the prosecution failed to prove either the conspiracy or the alleged recovery with reliable and corroborated evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement recorded during illegal detention, lacking proof of voluntariness and independent corroboration, cannot by itself sustain a conviction, and a doubtful recovery based on an unreliable panch witness does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---