Voluntary customs statements and corroborated recovery can sustain NDPS conviction despite retraction and no personal recovery under conspiracy liability.

Voluntary and corroborated recovery evidence, together with statements recorded under the NDPS Act and the Customs Act, was treated as sufficient to sustain conviction despite a later retraction, because no specific proof of coercion, threat, duress, or misrepresentation was shown. Liability under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was also held not to depend on recovery from the accused; participation in the trafficking arrangement could be established from co-accused statements and surrounding circumstances. On that basis, guilt was maintained, while the sentence for one appellant was reduced and aligned with the connected matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of the recovery and the statements recorded by Customs notwithstanding the plea of retraction; (ii) whether appellant No. 3 could be convicted under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the absence of any recovery from him and whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of the recovery and the statements recorded by Customs notwithstanding the plea of retraction.

Analysis: The recovery of heroin from the baggage and personal search of the accused was supported by the testimony of the customs officials and independent witnesses. The statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were found to have been made voluntarily, and the later plea of coercion was treated as an afterthought because no specific material of threat, duress, or misrepresentation was shown. In the absence of reliable material discrediting those statements, the evidentiary basis for conviction remained intact.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants for the narcotic offences was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether appellant No. 3 could be convicted under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the absence of any recovery from him and whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: For an offence under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, recovery from the accused is not indispensable. The material on record, including the statements of the co-accused and supporting circumstances, showed participation in the arrangement and assistance to the trafficking operation. While the conviction was maintained, the sentence was scaled down to the sentence awarded in the connected matter, keeping the fine and default term aligned accordingly.

Conclusion: Appellant No. 3's conviction under Section 29 was sustained and the sentence was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of sentence, while the findings of guilt were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary and corroborated statement recorded by customs can sustain conviction where a later retraction is unsupported by specific proof of coercion, and liability under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not depend on recovery from the conspirator or abettor.

---