Retracted customs statements need corroboration, and unproved recovery evidence cannot sustain a conviction under customs law.

Retracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 require close scrutiny and corroboration; where medical evidence casts doubt on voluntariness, such statements cannot safely sustain a conviction. A statement of one accused is not substantive proof against a co-accused without admissible corroboration. The prosecution must also prove recovery and documentary evidence through available primary witnesses: failure to examine independent panch witnesses, the goldsmith who issued the purity certificate, and failure to produce the seized gold for identification materially weakens the case. On these evidentiary deficiencies, the convictions and sentences were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be treated as voluntary and relied upon against the petitioners. (ii) Whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of examination of independent panch witnesses, the goldsmith who issued the purity certificate, and production of the seized gold for identification.

Issue (i): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be treated as voluntary and relied upon against the petitioners.

Analysis: The retracted statements required close scrutiny and corroboration. The material on record, including the medical evidence showing injuries on one petitioner, created doubt about the voluntariness of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. A statement of one accused could not be used against the co-accused as substantive proof in the absence of admissible corroboration, and a retracted statement could not by itself form the basis of conviction.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not proved to be voluntary and could not safely be used to sustain the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of examination of independent panch witnesses, the goldsmith who issued the purity certificate, and production of the seized gold for identification.

Analysis: The prosecution did not examine the independent panch witnesses who were present at the time of recovery, nor did it produce the goldsmith who allegedly issued the purity certificate. Mere marking of the certificate as an exhibit did not prove its contents. The seized gold was also not produced for identification. These omissions materially weakened the prosecution case and justified an adverse view of the evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution evidence suffered from material lacunae and was insufficient to uphold the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were set aside and the revision petitions were allowed on the ground that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under customs law cannot rest on an uncorroborated retracted statement or on documentary and recovery evidence that is not properly proved through available independent witnesses and primary evidence.

---