Retracted customs confession needs independent corroboration; a plausible acquittal will not be disturbed on a second view of evidence.

A retracted confession under section 108 of the Customs Act was treated as weak evidence unless shown to be voluntary and independently corroborated on material particulars. The prosecution relied on the statement and alleged gold recovery, but the panch witness did not support the case, other corroborative witnesses were not examined, and the surrounding evidence left doubt about exclusive attribution of the recovery. Applying the settled rule on appeals against acquittal, the court held that a plausible view taken by the trial court should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible, and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court for offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act called for interference on the basis of the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, the alleged recovery of gold, and the surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The prosecution relied principally on the respondent's statement under section 108 of the Customs Act and the alleged recovery of gold from the sea. The statement was retracted, and the court held that such a confession, though admissible, is weak evidence unless shown to be voluntary and trustworthy and supported by independent corroboration on material particulars. The independent panch witness did not support the prosecution, the other available corroborative witnesses such as the crew members, interpreter, or scribe were not examined, and the evidence left room for doubt about whether the recovery was truly at the instance of the respondent. The record also disclosed that several vessels were berthed in the relevant area, weakening the prosecution version on exclusive attribution. Applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the court held that where the trial court has taken a possible view on the evidence, interference is not justified merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt with reliable corroboration of the retracted confession, and the acquittal did not warrant appellate interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal against acquittal failed and the respondent's acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession under section 108 of the Customs Act can support conviction only if it is shown to be voluntary and is materially corroborated by independent evidence; an appellate court should not disturb a plausible acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence is possible.

---