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 acquits accused due to lack of evidence and procedural errors, leading to discharge of bail bonds.</h1> <h3>Kashmir Singh @ Bittu And Others Versus Inspector of Customs, Amritsar</h3> Kashmir Singh @ Bittu And Others Versus Inspector of Customs, Amritsar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of statements made before Customs Officers.2. Contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements.3. Non-production of case property in court.4. Handling and custody of case property and samples.5. Lack of independent witness examination.6. Conscious possession of contraband by the accused.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Statements Made Before Customs Officers:The primary issue was whether the statements made by the accused before the Customs Officer were admissible in evidence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Noor Aga v. State of Punjab*, which held that customs officers, when exercising powers of prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes, are considered police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, confessions made to them are inadmissible unless corroborated by independent evidence. The court concluded that a retracted confessional statement made before a Customs Officer alone is not sufficient to convict the accused without substantial corroboration.2. Contradictions in Prosecution Witnesses' Statements:The defense highlighted major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Specifically, PW-6, H.K. Kaushik, stated that the case property was never produced in court after the alleged recovery date, which cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The court found these contradictions significant enough to question the reliability of the prosecution's case.3. Non-Production of Case Property in Court:The defense argued that the case property was not produced in court, which was corroborated by PW-6's testimony. This failure to present the case property undermined the prosecution's case, as the chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence could not be verified.4. Handling and Custody of Case Property and Samples:The court noted irregularities in the handling and custody of the case property and samples. The seal used on the samples was not handed over to independent witnesses, and the samples sent for chemical examination were not deposited in the Malkhana. These lapses raised doubts about the authenticity and integrity of the evidence presented.5. Lack of Independent Witness Examination:The prosecution did not examine independent witnesses Ashok Kumar and Vikram Bhandari, who were present during the alleged recovery. The court cited *Noor Aga* to emphasize that the non-examination of material witnesses could lead to adverse inferences against the prosecution. The absence of testimony from these witnesses weakened the prosecution's case.6. Conscious Possession of Contraband by the Accused:The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband. The accused, Kashmir Singh, was a hired driver unaware of the contents of the luggage he was transporting. The defense's version appeared more plausible, leading the court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.Conclusion:The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to discrepancies, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2000 were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
